[Microbit-Python] Current state of play - a summary and straw man

[Michael]

On 13 October 2015 at 11:46, Nicholas H.Tollervey <ntoll at ntoll.org> wrote:
...

> > 2. The proper inline assembler that already exists, where you write code
> like:
> >
> > @micropython.asm_thumb
> > def f(r0, r1):
> >     label(loop)
> >     add(r0, r1)
> >     bne(loop)
> >
> > This is easier to hack, but since it's verbose you'll run out of
> > memory (in the compile stage) if you try to write long functions.  It
> > also takes up flash space (not too much though) and maybe in the
> > future we need this flash space for other things?
> >
>
> I like this too. Take a look at this - http://peter-cockerell.net/aalp/
> from 1987!!!! My first programming language was BBC BASIC.
>
> Can we do both. My reason for asking is that there appears to be a clear
> progression from the inline assembler to the cut'n'paste bytes solution.
>

While the primary audience for the micro:bit is obviously the kids, it's
worth noting that the GCSE computing curriculum (depending on which one you
read), still has references to using assembler & machine code. Having an
actual device that is something the kids can use (rather use a web page
simulator) and put even limited amounts of assembler into - even to switch
on/off leds or pins - would probably be a major thing for teachers. (at
least the ones that grasp the potential)

For kids, it also puts in reach getting access to the lowest layers of the
device, which makes this really cool.

(I have a copy of "machine code for beginners" at home -
http://boingboing.net/2013/05/16/1983s-wonderful-introducti.html - so
anyone who says it's not for kids is just silly :-) )


Michael.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.python.org/mailman/private/microbit/attachments/20151013/66e271e6/attachment-0001.html>