Frustrated Analog/RF Designer Wants To Learn How To Program In C

Start by getting a copy of the 'bible' - The C Programming Language, by Kernigan & Richie. It's very well written, and (especially if you have any programming background) you should be able to pick it up pretty quickly.

Also, have a look at http://www.vectorsite.net/tscpp.html (it's a little C primer).

Hi to all,

I'm a new member to the forum and sorry I can't help reply to Nason's post.

VTC offers video tutorials at http://www.vtc.com/products/cprogramming2007.htm

Sample lessons are available so you can try them before paying for the whole course.

If you're considering to play around with microcontrollers a good way to start is "C Programming for Microcontrollers" from http://www.smileymicros.com/. The book is aimed at programming Atmel's low cost Butterfly development board (around 20USD).

You can get plenty of support from other users at avrfreaks.net

Hope this helps.

I think you have answered your own question..'But I learn better by doing'

You obviously know enough to be writing some code... find a decent book with a style that suits and write stuff.

I had to develop a commercial product using a new processor and C some time back (I had writted a bit in C before) I just slowly expanded and experimented from an example that came with the development kit.

I suspect a lot of guys are using linkers and development kit without understanding 9/10 ths of it.... mainly because the pressure is to 'get the job done', and linker options, configuration files and suchlike are a complete load of *^%$££$. (The documentation never bears any resemblance to anything at all and there is always some vital file which must be included but is never referenced)
It's almost impossible to learn everything...we just need to learn that which is applicable at the time, then slowly expand...blimey there's all sorts of array and string handling stuff I havn't played with....but on the other hand a pure 'programmer' wouldn't know how he was driving the hardware.

Any how..I expect to take some flak for that attitude...but I'm hard I can take it.

Have fun

Del

( expected ; !? ... well just pretend it was there you stupid program and see if it makes sense!!!)

Nason, I'm an analogue design engineer and I'd warn you first not to be taken in by the hypes of programming languages...

They're easy to learn and so there are software writers almost under every stone you turn over!!

Instead specialise in YOUR field - why not look into analogue integrated circuit design, especially rf design - there are very few GOOD rf analogue integrated circuit designers out there and the ones in the UK can easily earn double what a software kiddie can earn - I'm talking about £100k!!

Forget two a penny software designers (sorry software engineers on here) go for the big bucks!!!

If I was a mite younger that's where I'd be heading....

Or, of course look out for the analogue designer shortages, in the UK there are premium salaries paid for rare analogue designers, especially in the rf field...

Don't fall for the dark side.... Luke!!

John

I'm pretty much in the same situation as you... "I HAVE TO LEARN C!!!" So far, C for Dummies looks like a good start. They even tell you how to get free compilers - especially, the one they use in the book.

Another language you might want to take a look at is FORTH. While everyone seems to think it's a dead language, it's still very much alive and used primarily in embedded systems. The reason is two-fold - first, you can run it in interpreted mode to find and fix bugs very easily. Second, it tends to compile into VERY compact machine code. It's surprising how much of it is silently running in the World. For example, most UNIX boxes are built up upon a FORTH kernel, and most users never know it's there!

I'm pretty much in the same situation as you... "I HAVE TO LEARN C!!!" So far, C for Dummies looks like a good start. They even tell you how to get free compilers - especially, the one they use in the book.

K&R is the bible. Build a Linux machine and get yourself a development environment.

Another language you might want to take a look at is FORTH. While everyone seems to think it's a dead language,

It is.

it's still very much alive and used primarily in embedded systems.

It's not.

The reason is two-fold - first, you can run it in interpreted mode to find and fix bugs very easily. Second, it tends to compile into VERY compact machine code. It's surprising how much of it is silently running in the World. For example, most UNIX boxes are built up upon a FORTH kernel, and most users never know it's there!

What nonsense. Where did you get this from?

Mark Addinall.

Unfortunately, what it must work on is Windows.

As far as FORTH is concerned, you're the wise-guy, you figure it out.

http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/

Although the object was to "Learn C' was it not? Using Windows as an embedded system platform must be hairy.

The

ok?

prompt is not part of any UNIX kernel. Most modern boot loaders have a FORTH interpereter built into the code. FORTH has it's uses. It keeps people away from C and assembler. However, if you notice the files, primitives.c forth.c internal.c and bootstrap.c are all written in which programming language do you think?

Correct. C.

The interpreter is handy for disturbing the boot stepping process.

It DOES NOT form part of any UNIX (or Linux) kernel.

The OpenBIOS FCODE suite is also written in C.

coreboot is becoming more popular as the Open Source BIOS bootstrap loader. It can boot a number of payloads, OpenBIOS being one of them,

coreboot is written in......

Yes good readers, C.

http://www.coreboot.org/Welcome_to_coreboot

What is coreboot?

coreboot (formerly known as LinuxBIOS) is a Free Software project aimed at replacing the proprietary BIOS (firmware) you can find in most of today's computers.

It performs just a little bit of hardware initialization and then executes a so-called payload.

Some of the many possible payloads are: a Linux kernel, FILO, GRUB2, OpenBIOS, Open Firmware, SmartFirmware, GNUFI (UEFI), Etherboot, ADLO (for booting Windows 2000 and OpenBSD), Plan 9, or memtest86.

The initial motivation for the project was maintenance of large clusters, but unsurprisingly, interest and contributions have come from people with varying backgrounds. The latest version of coreboot can be used in a wide variety of scenarios including clusters, embedded systems, desktop PCs, servers, and more.

For more information, see History.

Why do we need coreboot? Why do we need coreboot for cluster maintainance?

Current PCs used as cluster nodes depend on a vendor-supplied BIOS for booting. The BIOS in turn relies on inherently unreliable devices such as floppy disks and hard drives to boot the operating system. In addition, current BIOS software is unable to accommodate non-standard hardware making it difficult to support experimental work. The BIOS is slow and often erroneous and redundant and, most importantly, maintenance is a nightmare. Imagine walking around with a keyboard and monitor to every one of the 128 nodes in a cluster to change one BIOS setting.

coreboot with Linux as a payload (other payloads are possible!) gunzip's the Linux kernel straight out of NVRAM and essentially requires no moving parts other than the fan. It does a minimal amount of hardware initialization before jumping to the kernel start and lets Linux do the rest. As a result, it is much faster (current record 3 seconds), which has sparked interest in the consumer electronics community as well. Moreover, updates can be performed over the network.

Using a real operating system to boot another operating system provides much greater flexibility than using a simple netboot program or the BIOS. Because Linux is the boot mechanism, it can boot over standard Ethernet or over other interconnects such as Myrinet, Quadrics, or SCI. It can use SSH connections to load the kernel, or it can use the InterMezzo caching file system or traditional NFS. Cluster nodes can be as simple as they need to be – perhaps as simple as a CPU and memory, no disk, no floppy, and no file system. The nodes will be much less autonomous thus making them easier to maintain.

So 'guru' learning some FORTH as a hobby might be an interesting thing to do on a slow Sunday, but C is still king of the hill when getting down to the metal.

I hoped that helped.

Mark Addinall. Cairns. QLD.

... embedded does not NECESSARILLY mean windows... I wonder what percentage of embedded code is running on windows... 10% 70%? any offers?

The Original post doesn't mention windows. It does mention a 'Radio' ..ever seen a radio running on windows? (don't answer that as I expect some twonk has made one)

(There seems to be a common missconception that 'embedded'..means a single board PC in a box... )

Del

I've designed and programmed scores of embedded stand alone systems.

Most used a Basic interpretor, as it was a quick and easy way to program, as well as being very easy to modify - speed wasn't too important in most control / measuring processes.

In the others I used assembler language compiled - no problems!!

I wouldn't dare use a Windoze environment!!!

John

I've designed and programmed scores of embedded stand alone systems.

Which ones?

Most used a Basic interpretor, as it was a quick and easy way to program, as well as being very easy to modify

You used a BASIC interpreter to write embedded systems?

How?

- speed wasn't too important in most control / measuring processes.

Speed is not important in RTOS, SCADA, Control or SPCC? How very odd. I thought it was.

In the others I used assembler language compiled - no problems!!

How do you 'compile' assembler? I was under the assumption that we 'assembled' it into an object deck, the used a link/Editor to include the library code?

Mark Addinall.

I wouldn't dare use a Windoze environment!!!

John

1) which ones? - My own design to suit the customer's requirements of course!

2) How? - Basic interpretors used to be available in an EPROM or burnt into an 8052 mask ROM!!

3) speed query - It wasn't, in every case the interpreted BASIC was fine!!

4) how do you compile assembler? - Easy using an assembler program!!

I'm not a software writer, I'm an analogue designer who hates software with a passion - I can see you are obviously a software designer by your comments criticizing but not giving an explanation!!

John.

UNDER Windows, or,

ON Windows?

70%

and

2%

Mark Addinall.

Very informative, thanks.

By the way SUN UNIX boxes don't include FORTH in their operating system, however, the entire operating system runs on top of FORTH. If you know how to get there you can see it. Oh, and so does Apple OS.

C Primer Plus, Fifth Edition by Stephen Prata on Sams press is an excellent and up to date reference. Put together well and well indexed.

Embedded software is also written in languages other than "C".

There is a free newsletter published by this organization:

http://www.embedded.com/index.jhtml

You may find it useful, interesting...maybe both.

Good luck!

Have a look around here.

http://www.uclinux.org/

The blokes writing it are top value.

To learn C; build a GNU/Linux box and get hold of a K&R.

You'll enjoy it. Great programming language.

Cheers, Mark.

See thread "How to build a Linux machine"

/Ari (Orpheuse)

Your RF knowhow would better serve those designing high speed digital busses. These guys thought that they were going to do digital electronics but end up having to solve RF problems. You already know about transmission lines and phase delays, use it.

That's a very good point!

NO! It's nonsense...you would condemn the poor guy to a life of RF and having a beard and tweed jacket!

Hey if he wants to be a programmer and get to wear sandals and a T shirt that's a noble objective .

(All stereotypes supplied courtesy of KrisDel^TM Ltd)

Del

At 55, I re entered TAMUCC and joined the teenagers to learn C+. This worked well for me. I learned the language, syntax, properties, and made a small program that worked quite well. The rest is all application out of the manuals.

I learnt C++ from the book "C++ for Dummies" and I would recommend that route to anyone starting out in the area. Also, find a free compiler and start playing ASAP. Something with graphical output will help the development process.

Take an introductory course first so you can start in the right direction. You can then learn more on your own. Start on you own works but it'll take a bit longer. If you have programed in other language before, it'll be much easier. If not, taking a course first is highly recommended.

Greetings, Pineapple,

I have arrived at the same place Nason. I want to learn C++ because it seems they program a lot of robots with C++. I am coming from a background in Mainframes, minis and the very first micros. I've programmed in Assembler and a half dozen other languages. I have never programmed under a Windows environment. I slipped out of programming about 12 years ago.

What I find most daunting is all the baggage you have to shlep around in your code to accommodate Windows GUI. Any recommendations on where I should start?

Clueless,

/Ari

Orpheuse

I'm with you here.

VB? - no prob., C? - no prob., Assembler/C mix? - no prob., Fortran, Algol, "old-fashioned" Basic etc. no prob.

C++ (or VC)? - Piles of junk to wade through. WHY? I can do, and have done, re-usable code in any of the above (excepting machine-specifics in Assembler), so what's the advantage? I've read all about this Inheritance business, but it doesn't seem to be applicable to anything I do.

Until I have no alternative, I'm going to steer clear.

Someone once said that C++ is the lung cancer of programming.

I start my programming in Logo (turtle graphic) on a Apple ][. Then move on to AppleSoft, Assembly, Pascal, DOS, Windows.

Windows is just another library you can use. Its a huge one which you'll need to read lots of documents to find out all the calls and parameters.

C and C++ got funny syntax. I just can't get it to work.

I have the inverse problem... I want to design a wide bandwidth amplifier (say from 50 MHz thru 500 MHz). Freescale has a transistor which will handle the bandwidth, but the PCB design is a real bear. It is much like Shroedingers cat.

You no longer add a capacitor to the circuit... you design it... or whatever.

If you are worried about digital vs analog Engineering, don't.

The very best that Digital Signal Processing has been able to deal with has been in the IF frequencies.

The best I am saying is that if you are into rf, pursue it... but maximize it. State of the art is here also.

Is someone thinking about going into radio-astronomy?

Actually, this amp would fit on the other side, with 5 watts in, to 100 watts out. The immediate application would be for amateur radio, but it would be quite feasible to use it for commercial applications too.

We are finding radios now operating on multiple frequency bands. One that comes to mind operates at 150 MHz, 450 MHz and 1.2 GHz. I have a little hand held which operates on 50, 150, and 450 MHz... so it would be nice to have a single amplifier that would work on all those frequencies. Currently one needs a seperate amplifier for each band used.

I set 50 MHz as a lower frequency limit because such a critter would have to undergo FCC type acceptance... which means it could NOT work on 27 MHz (citizens band).

Anyhow, that is the application.

Bill

Just asked because radio astronomers like to receive the widest bands possible, so as not to miss nothing.