Sources for 8b TTL keyboards (Keytronics)

Chuck Guzis cclist at
Sun Dec 7 11:22:51 CST 2008

On 7 Dec 2008 at 13:06, Alexandre Souza wrote:

> > One minor gripe that I have is that the uC community seems to put up 
> > with really lame assembly-language tools, insisting on using C 
> > instead.  Many are Harvard architecture( not the MSP430), which calls 
>     Lame? Try AVR Studio and call THAT lame! :oO

That's precisely what I call lame.  An assembler with clumsy syntax 
that forces one to define constants as:

.EQU	Name = Value

Terrible macro facilities.  No strong typing or ways to form local 
variables.  One can't even access the name of the label field in a 
macro invocation.  I could compile a long list of deficiencies.

There were far better assemblers in the 1960s, running on far more 
limited hardware.  Perhaps the people who wrote the AVR assembler 
never had to code much in assembly.

One might have argued in the beginning that these were only 
microcontrollers capable of running only a very small program, so 
what did it matter.  But that's no longer true, which only 
demonstrates the limited vision of whoever wrote the development 

I care less about an IDE than I do about the tools which comprise it. 
Give me an assembler which has at least the capabilities of, say, 
MASM 5.0 or S/360 assembler and I won't feel that I'm too limited by 
the tools.  

Of course, since AVR has an "official" assembler, improvments on the 
syntax and features are considered to be "nonstandard".  So we code 
with a hood tied over our heads and curse the darkness.

I know the standard answer--I've seen it on the AVR forums--use C.  I 
think that's a cop-out.  I can write C just fine, but I enjoy writing 
a well-crafted piece of assembly.  Giving me a rusty screwdriver and 
a dull hatchet as a toolkit is shameful.


More information about the cctalk mailing list