Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

36-way Female Centronics Connector

:: EPE Chat Zone ­:: ­Radio Bygones Message Board :: » EPE Forum Archives 2007-2009 » Archive through 14 November, 2007 » Teach-in 2008 » 36-way Female Centronics Connector « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

perro
Just joined
Username: perro

Post Number: 1
Registered: 10-2007

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Tuesday, 23 October, 2007 - 05:10 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi, all.

Does anyone know where I could acquire a PCB-mounted 36-way female Centronics connector, required to go on PCB 647, for Teach-in 2008?

I've tried Googling, but get swamped with results for cables and converters, and I've long since chucked my old parallel printers.

Any ideas would be welcomed...

This is my first post here, so apologies if this is inappropriate.

Regards

Perro
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

john_becker
:::: Super User ::::
Username: john_becker

Post Number: 1619
Registered: 05-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Tuesday, 23 October, 2007 - 05:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Perro, mine came from RS Components, part no 470-639

J
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

perro
Just joined
Username: perro

Post Number: 2
Registered: 10-2007

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Wednesday, 24 October, 2007 - 08:57 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Many thanks, John.

Someone also, since, put me onto Crownhill, here:
http://www.crownhill.co.uk/product.php?prod=1523

I've no idea what they're like to deal with, but thought I'd mention it in case RS run out (they're showing this as 'discontinued product').

Anyway, I can't wait for next month's Teach-in, now....

Thanks, again!

Perro
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

zapper
Just joined
Username: zapper

Post Number: 1
Registered: 11-2007

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Monday, 05 November, 2007 - 05:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi I'm new to chatzone. Just a thought as I wait with interest to the developing teach in, I have been producing programs for Pics, some quite involved, using a compiler (BASIC). I have a little idea about assembly programing but not enough. Would you say programing in assembly is like writing by hand when everyone uses a wordprocessor. Comments??
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

john_becker
:::: Super User ::::
Username: john_becker

Post Number: 1635
Registered: 05-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Monday, 05 November, 2007 - 07:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

There are those, Zapper, who regard assembly as primitive. Not me - I think instinctively in assembler and have no problems. It's a matter of opinion and what one is currently used to. I have no intention of moving from assembler. Generally the final code is more compact I find, but I'm sure others may disagree with me.

J
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

kevinbrunt
Valued Member
Username: kevinbrunt

Post Number: 20
Registered: 02-2007

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Monday, 05 November, 2007 - 09:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In the 1950s, the cost per CPU cycle was so large that some of the "pioneers" regarded the idea of wasting processor capacity on *assembling* programs as heresy - the modern symbolic assembly program partly evolved out of the "pseudo code" notations that programmers would hand-translate into bit patterns.

Many of the infelicities of FORTRAN resulted from a requirement that FORTRAN programs run almost as fast as their machine code equivalents. The myth that "recursion is inefficient" is because recursion was impossibly difficult to implement within the limitations of the machine architectures of the late 1950s.

There was a study (probably in the late 1960s) which concluded that the number of lines of debugged and documented source code that a programmer produced per day was to a large extent independent of the programming language. If you're writing a *big* program you're mush more likely to get it to work if you use a high-level language.

It's also worth remembering that FORTRAN turned out to be insufficiently high-level to be efficient on the Cray - the "obvious" way to write a matrix multiplication was totally incompatible with the way that the Cray's vector processors worked, and a lot of existing programs had to be rewritten (and re-debugged) before they could take advantage of the Cray's capabilities.

A typical 12C or 16C PIC is, of course, rather closer to a 1950's machine than a 1980's one, so the assembler vs high-level choice is more closely balanced. A large assembler application on an 18C PIC would be daft....

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page