Sign in
Search piclist
Subscribe to piclist
piclist by Keywords
12F675 | 16F628 | 16F84 | 16f877 | 16F877A | 16F88 | 18F458 | ADC | AVR | Bootloader | CAN | CCS | CRC | EAGLE | EEPROM | ICD | ICSP | IDE | JDM | LED | Macros | Microchip | MPLAB | PCB-CAD | PIC10F | Pic12f675 | PIC16F84 | PIC16F84A | PIC16F877 | PIC18 | PIC18F452 | PicBasic | PICC | PICSTART | PWM | RS-485 | RS232 | SMT | SPI | UART | USART | USB | Wireless | Wisp628 | Xilinx
Discussion Groups
Discussion Groups | Piclist | Re: Best PIC Compiler???
A discussion group for the PICMicro microcontroller. Also called the Microchip PIC, this list is dedicated to the use and abuse of this fine, simple, microcontroller. Close to topic posts are welcome, ie. general electronics.
Best PIC Compiler??? - larrwill202wl - Apr 16 7:31:00 2003
|
Hi All, I have been using MPLAB and assembler, primarily because it's FREE, but I have had enough of assembler and would like to get a compiler. Any opinions and info on the following would be appreciated. Any other recommendations are also welcome. Also, why do the Basic compilers offer so many more included functions than C? Thanks... Basic: Basic Micro - MBasic Melabs - Pic Basic C: FED C2C CCS - Seems like the best choice, but the high cost of the windows version and annual update fee push this to the bottom of the pile. |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Best PIC Compiler??? - Bert Drake - Apr 16 10:20:00 2003
|
I'm having good luck with C2C, which includes a IDE and
Windows Simulator/Debugger all for around $60.
I've also had good luck with cc5x free version, although
the cost is a little high for the registered versions. It is a command line compiler
only.
The only significant limitation of the free version is a
1k code limitation.
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Best PIC Compiler??? - rtstofer - Apr 16 10:33:00 2003
|
Second question first: Basic has a lot of included functions because it is generally an interpreted language. That is, there is an interpreter running inside the PIC that processes tokenized Basic programs and the interpreter has a lot of built-in stuff. Not always, CH Flash Basic generates assembly code and allows you to view the assembly code in a panel alongside the Basic code. Generally, if you are writing in assembly or c you will have libraries of code, yours or something supplied with the compiler. But these are microcontrollers - they are designed to take measurements and toggle bits, not simulate weather. Look at cc5x - there is a limited FREE version that works quite well. It has a built-in code limit but that can be overcome by linking multiple modules. I have been tempted to buy the full version - it is 'reasonably' priced and generates pretty good code. Also, Hi Tech has a free version of their c compiler and it is also somewhat limited but quite good because it is the standard used by Microchip. Very good code generation when optimized. Truth be known, I like assembly language. There is a macro library somewhere on the internet (probably www.piclist.com) that implements the control structures of c. Various types of loops, etc. Of course multi-byte arithmetic routines are also available. Adding macros for indexing arrays is trivial. Further, it is possible to write application specific macros that make the program operation comprehensible without adding bloat. With conditional assembly it is possible to support multiple hardware variations with a common code base. And all of the above can be done in c. But I always have to look at the generated code to be certain the compiler is doing the right thing. Especially when my 'obviously correct' program in doing something quite unusual. Good luck! --- In , "larrwill202wl" <larrwill202wl@y...> wrote: > Hi All, > I have been using MPLAB and assembler, primarily because it's FREE, > but I have had enough of assembler and would like to get a compiler. > Any opinions and info on the following would be appreciated. Any > other recommendations are also welcome. > Also, why do the Basic compilers offer so many more included > functions than C? > > Thanks... > > Basic: > Basic Micro - MBasic > Melabs - Pic Basic > > C: > FED > C2C > CCS - Seems like the best choice, but the high cost of the windows > version and annual update fee push this to the bottom of the pile. |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Best PIC Compiler??? - Author Unknown - Apr 16 10:37:00 2003
|
oh,oh...holly war in the horizon!! lol... I have seen this kind of discussion every now
and then in every
mailing list that involves any kind of programming, i.e., pic lists. There
will always be a compiler for everyone and a programming language for
everyone. At this point there is always a big factor that makes people go
one way instead of other: "this one works for me" and then they think it
should be the answer for others. Trust me, it is a better idea to get some
demos, try then and get your own point of view. I know this post might be a
little frustrating but this is the result of my own experiences... Regards,
*Carlos*
P.S: I have been usign MPLAB for years and I think I will keep using it...
(assembler works for me!(that is an elegant way of saying "I am cheap"...)
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Best PIC Compiler??? - rtstofer - Apr 16 10:41:00 2003
|
You might also look at JAL (Just A Language). It is available free and you can find info at www.voti.nl/jal/. Also drop in at the Mark III forum here on Yahoo - there is a lot of work going on to make the compiler output work with a memory based boot loader. All this for the Mark III Mini-Sumo robot. Also check the Programming section of the Userguide for the Mark III robot at www.junun.org. Other alternatives are available. --- In , "larrwill202wl" <larrwill202wl@y...> wrote: > Hi All, > I have been using MPLAB and assembler, primarily because it's FREE, > but I have had enough of assembler and would like to get a compiler. > Any opinions and info on the following would be appreciated. Any > other recommendations are also welcome. > Also, why do the Basic compilers offer so many more included > functions than C? > > Thanks... > > Basic: > Basic Micro - MBasic > Melabs - Pic Basic > > C: > FED > C2C > CCS - Seems like the best choice, but the high cost of the windows > version and annual update fee push this to the bottom of the pile. |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: Best PIC Compiler??? - Gilmar - Apr 16 11:57:00 2003
|
I have used hi-tech "C" compiler and I didn't have any problem with
them, some time ago I used assembler for a lot of years and now I don't use more. I use It just for some few thing that don't get to make in "C" but inside the "C" code. The better to use "C" is the short time to development your software and you can to use math library and other library that have in "C" compiler. Other good thing is that you can change your microntroller for other manufactory only change your compiler and adapting some register in your code. I hope It help you. > > Hi All, > > I have been using MPLAB and assembler, primarily because it's FREE, > > but I have had enough of assembler and would like to get a > compiler. > > Any opinions and info on the following would be appreciated. Any > > other recommendations are also welcome. > > Also, why do the Basic compilers offer so many more included > > functions than C? > > > > Thanks... > > > > Basic: > > Basic Micro - MBasic > > Melabs - Pic Basic > > > > C: > > FED > > C2C > > CCS - Seems like the best choice, but the high cost of the windows > > version and annual update fee push this to the bottom of the pile. > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Best PIC Compiler??? - Cliff Griffin - Apr 17 13:07:00 2003
|
As far as PIC's are concerned, basic is NOT an interpreted language. I do not know of even a single basic interpreter on the market for PIC's. The Basic Stamp products by Parallax utilize an interpreter, but that is a whole different product--they didn't even make the language tokenizing available until recently. The basic compilers for PIC's are just that--compilers. When I was tired of assembly and started looking for a compiler, I talked with a couple guys who used more than one compiler. For some reason, people tend to suggest whatever they are using, regardless of their experience or lack thereof. I am no exception. Everybody who I talked with that used PicBasic Pro used it primarily, regardless of how many other compilers they have tried. Nobody had a copy that gathered digital dust. After I bought it, I had no reason to try another compiler. It had no bugs in any of my (efficient) code, and they quickly eliminate or publish work-arounds the few bugs that do pass through--within days, at the worst. It has a more extensive command library than any other product, it is more mature than any other product, and I can't imagine a better support structure. They have guys in-house that are very helpful, the distributor who I bought it from, Bruce Reynolds at www.rentron.com has been extremely helpful, and there is a PicBasic list that is far more active than this one. (Bruce's help has been so good that I would rather pay a premium to him than buy through a discount house--fortunately, his prices are competitive, too.) PicBasic Pro also has the advantage of being very Basic Stamp II compatible, for those who are moving up. You can use a free MicroCode Studio editor which has a debugger that works with the '877's, or pay a small fee to get the Pro version and use the debugger with all PIC compatible chips. You can view any of your assembly code if you wish, too--although I have only had to do so out of curiosity. Upgrades are regular, about every 4-6 months, and include new PIC capabilities as well as new commands--for only $10, a very small price. I've programmed quite a few C programs, primarily for Windows, but personally, for PIC's, I prefer PicBasic Pro--at $250, you can't get anywhere near the power from a similarly priced C product. You can even use PBP for free at www.compilespot.com . (I haven't been there, just heard about it.) Cliff (happy customer) ----- Original Message ----- From: "rtstofer" <> To: <> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:33 AM Subject: [piclist] Re: Best PIC Compiler??? > > Second question first: Basic has a lot of included functions because > it is generally an interpreted language. That is, there is an > interpreter running inside the PIC that processes tokenized Basic > programs and the interpreter has a lot of built-in stuff. Not > always, CH Flash Basic generates assembly code and allows you to view > the assembly code in a panel alongside the Basic code. > > Generally, if you are writing in assembly or c you will have > libraries of code, yours or something supplied with the compiler. > But these are microcontrollers - they are designed to take > measurements and toggle bits, not simulate weather. > > Look at cc5x - there is a limited FREE version that works quite > well. It has a built-in code limit but that can be overcome by > linking multiple modules. I have been tempted to buy the full > version - it is 'reasonably' priced and generates pretty good code. > > Also, Hi Tech has a free version of their c compiler and it is also > somewhat limited but quite good because it is the standard used by > Microchip. Very good code generation when optimized. > > Truth be known, I like assembly language. There is a macro library > somewhere on the internet (probably www.piclist.com) that implements > the control structures of c. Various types of loops, etc. > > Of course multi-byte arithmetic routines are also available. Adding > macros for indexing arrays is trivial. Further, it is possible to > write application specific macros that make the program operation > comprehensible without adding bloat. With conditional assembly it is > possible to support multiple hardware variations with a common code > base. > > And all of the above can be done in c. But I always have to look at > the generated code to be certain the compiler is doing the right > thing. Especially when my 'obviously correct' program in doing > something quite unusual. > > Good luck! > > --- In , "larrwill202wl" <larrwill202wl@y...> > wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have been using MPLAB and assembler, primarily because it's FREE, > > but I have had enough of assembler and would like to get a > compiler. > > Any opinions and info on the following would be appreciated. Any > > other recommendations are also welcome. > > Also, why do the Basic compilers offer so many more included > > functions than C? > > > > Thanks... > > > > Basic: > > Basic Micro - MBasic > > Melabs - Pic Basic > > > > C: > > FED > > C2C > > CCS - Seems like the best choice, but the high cost of the windows > > version and annual update fee push this to the bottom of the pile. > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Best PIC Compiler??? - rtstofer - Apr 17 14:50:00 2003
|
Well, OOPIC (www.oopic.com) is based on the 16F877 and is totally interpreted, contains many built-in objects and can be programmed in Basic, C or Java. It's a PIC and it uses interpreted basic. --- In , "Cliff Griffin" <webring@r...> wrote: > As far as PIC's are concerned, basic is NOT an interpreted language. I do > not know of even a single basic interpreter on the market for PIC's. The > Basic Stamp products by Parallax utilize an interpreter, but that is a whole > different product--they didn't even make the language tokenizing available > until recently. The basic compilers for PIC's are just that-- compilers. > > When I was tired of assembly and started looking for a compiler, I talked > with a couple guys who used more than one compiler. For some reason, people > tend to suggest whatever they are using, regardless of their experience or > lack thereof. I am no exception. Everybody who I talked with that used > PicBasic Pro used it primarily, regardless of how many other compilers they > have tried. Nobody had a copy that gathered digital dust. After I bought it, > I had no reason to try another compiler. It had no bugs in any of my > (efficient) code, and they quickly eliminate or publish work- arounds the few > bugs that do pass through--within days, at the worst. It has a more > extensive command library than any other product, it is more mature than any > other product, and I can't imagine a better support structure. They have > guys in-house that are very helpful, the distributor who I bought it from, > Bruce Reynolds at www.rentron.com has been extremely helpful, and there is a > PicBasic list that is far more active than this one. (Bruce's help has been > so good that I would rather pay a premium to him than buy through a discount > house--fortunately, his prices are competitive, too.) > > PicBasic Pro also has the advantage of being very Basic Stamp II compatible, > for those who are moving up. You can use a free MicroCode Studio editor > which has a debugger that works with the '877's, or pay a small fee to get > the Pro version and use the debugger with all PIC compatible chips. You can > view any of your assembly code if you wish, too--although I have only had to > do so out of curiosity. Upgrades are regular, about every 4-6 months, and > include new PIC capabilities as well as new commands--for only $10, a very > small price. > > I've programmed quite a few C programs, primarily for Windows, but > personally, for PIC's, I prefer PicBasic Pro--at $250, you can't get > anywhere near the power from a similarly priced C product. You can even use > PBP for free at www.compilespot.com . (I haven't been there, just heard > about it.) > > Cliff > (happy customer) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> > To: <> > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:33 AM > Subject: [piclist] Re: Best PIC Compiler??? > > > > Second question first: Basic has a lot of included functions because > > it is generally an interpreted language. That is, there is an > > interpreter running inside the PIC that processes tokenized Basic > > programs and the interpreter has a lot of built-in stuff. Not > > always, CH Flash Basic generates assembly code and allows you to view > > the assembly code in a panel alongside the Basic code. > > > > Generally, if you are writing in assembly or c you will have > > libraries of code, yours or something supplied with the compiler. > > But these are microcontrollers - they are designed to take > > measurements and toggle bits, not simulate weather. > > > > Look at cc5x - there is a limited FREE version that works quite > > well. It has a built-in code limit but that can be overcome by > > linking multiple modules. I have been tempted to buy the full > > version - it is 'reasonably' priced and generates pretty good code. > > > > Also, Hi Tech has a free version of their c compiler and it is also > > somewhat limited but quite good because it is the standard used by > > Microchip. Very good code generation when optimized. > > > > Truth be known, I like assembly language. There is a macro library > > somewhere on the internet (probably www.piclist.com) that implements > > the control structures of c. Various types of loops, etc. > > > > Of course multi-byte arithmetic routines are also available. Adding > > macros for indexing arrays is trivial. Further, it is possible to > > write application specific macros that make the program operation > > comprehensible without adding bloat. With conditional assembly it is > > possible to support multiple hardware variations with a common code > > base. > > > > And all of the above can be done in c. But I always have to look at > > the generated code to be certain the compiler is doing the right > > thing. Especially when my 'obviously correct' program in doing > > something quite unusual. > > > > Good luck! > > > > > > > > --- In , "larrwill202wl" <larrwill202wl@y...> > > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > I have been using MPLAB and assembler, primarily because it's FREE, > > > but I have had enough of assembler and would like to get a > > compiler. > > > Any opinions and info on the following would be appreciated. Any > > > other recommendations are also welcome. > > > Also, why do the Basic compilers offer so many more included > > > functions than C? > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > Basic: > > > Basic Micro - MBasic > > > Melabs - Pic Basic > > > > > > C: > > > FED > > > C2C > > > CCS - Seems like the best choice, but the high cost of the windows > > > version and annual update fee push this to the bottom of the pile. > > > > > > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the > instructions > > > > > > > > > |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: Best PIC Compiler??? - Cliff Griffin - Apr 18 12:58:00 2003
|
That is a hardware prduct just as much as a software product, and if you are going to call Basic an interpreted language based on that, then you might as well call C and Java interpreted also. Cliff ----- Original Message ----- From: "rtstofer" <> To: <> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 12:50 PM Subject: [piclist] Re: Best PIC Compiler??? > > Well, OOPIC (www.oopic.com) is based on the 16F877 and is totally > interpreted, contains many built-in objects and can be programmed in > Basic, C or Java. It's a PIC and it uses interpreted basic. > --- In , "Cliff Griffin" <webring@r...> wrote: > > As far as PIC's are concerned, basic is NOT an interpreted > language. I do > > not know of even a single basic interpreter on the market for > PIC's. The > > Basic Stamp products by Parallax utilize an interpreter, but that > is a whole > > different product--they didn't even make the language tokenizing > available > > until recently. The basic compilers for PIC's are just that-- > compilers. > > > > When I was tired of assembly and started looking for a compiler, I > talked > > with a couple guys who used more than one compiler. For some > reason, people > > tend to suggest whatever they are using, regardless of their > experience or > > lack thereof. I am no exception. Everybody who I talked with that > used > > PicBasic Pro used it primarily, regardless of how many other > compilers they > > have tried. Nobody had a copy that gathered digital dust. After I > bought it, > > I had no reason to try another compiler. It had no bugs in any of my > > (efficient) code, and they quickly eliminate or publish work- > arounds the few > > bugs that do pass through--within days, at the worst. It has a more > > extensive command library than any other product, it is more mature > than any > > other product, and I can't imagine a better support structure. They > have > > guys in-house that are very helpful, the distributor who I bought > it from, > > Bruce Reynolds at www.rentron.com has been extremely helpful, and > there is a > > PicBasic list that is far more active than this one. (Bruce's help > has been > > so good that I would rather pay a premium to him than buy through a > discount > > house--fortunately, his prices are competitive, too.) > > > > PicBasic Pro also has the advantage of being very Basic Stamp II > compatible, > > for those who are moving up. You can use a free MicroCode Studio > editor > > which has a debugger that works with the '877's, or pay a small fee > to get > > the Pro version and use the debugger with all PIC compatible chips. > You can > > view any of your assembly code if you wish, too--although I have > only had to > > do so out of curiosity. Upgrades are regular, about every 4-6 > months, and > > include new PIC capabilities as well as new commands--for only $10, > a very > > small price. > > > > I've programmed quite a few C programs, primarily for Windows, but > > personally, for PIC's, I prefer PicBasic Pro--at $250, you can't get > > anywhere near the power from a similarly priced C product. You can > even use > > PBP for free at www.compilespot.com . (I haven't been there, just > heard > > about it.) > > > > Cliff > > (happy customer) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> > > To: <> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:33 AM > > Subject: [piclist] Re: Best PIC Compiler??? > > > > > > > > > > Second question first: Basic has a lot of included functions > because > > > it is generally an interpreted language. That is, there is an > > > interpreter running inside the PIC that processes tokenized Basic > > > programs and the interpreter has a lot of built-in stuff. Not > > > always, CH Flash Basic generates assembly code and allows you to > view > > > the assembly code in a panel alongside the Basic code. > > > > > > Generally, if you are writing in assembly or c you will have > > > libraries of code, yours or something supplied with the compiler. > > > But these are microcontrollers - they are designed to take > > > measurements and toggle bits, not simulate weather. > > > > > > Look at cc5x - there is a limited FREE version that works quite > > > well. It has a built-in code limit but that can be overcome by > > > linking multiple modules. I have been tempted to buy the full > > > version - it is 'reasonably' priced and generates pretty good > code. > > > > > > Also, Hi Tech has a free version of their c compiler and it is > also > > > somewhat limited but quite good because it is the standard used by > > > Microchip. Very good code generation when optimized. > > > > > > Truth be known, I like assembly language. There is a macro > library > > > somewhere on the internet (probably www.piclist.com) that > implements > > > the control structures of c. Various types of loops, etc. > > > > > > Of course multi-byte arithmetic routines are also available. > Adding > > > macros for indexing arrays is trivial. Further, it is possible to > > > write application specific macros that make the program operation > > > comprehensible without adding bloat. With conditional assembly > it is > > > possible to support multiple hardware variations with a common > code > > > base. > > > > > > And all of the above can be done in c. But I always have to look > at > > > the generated code to be certain the compiler is doing the right > > > thing. Especially when my 'obviously correct' program in doing > > > something quite unusual. > > > > > > Good luck! > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "larrwill202wl" > <larrwill202wl@y...> > > > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > I have been using MPLAB and assembler, primarily because it's > FREE, > > > > but I have had enough of assembler and would like to get a > > > compiler. > > > > Any opinions and info on the following would be appreciated. Any > > > > other recommendations are also welcome. > > > > Also, why do the Basic compilers offer so many more included > > > > functions than C? > > > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > > > Basic: > > > > Basic Micro - MBasic > > > > Melabs - Pic Basic > > > > > > > > C: > > > > FED > > > > C2C > > > > CCS - Seems like the best choice, but the high cost of the > windows > > > > version and annual update fee push this to the bottom of the > pile. > > > > > > > > > > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the > > instructions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions |
|
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Best PIC Compiler??? - rtstofer - Apr 18 15:23:00 2003
|
And on this PIC they are indeed interpreted. The issue isn't interpreted versus compiled. It is just to point out that at least one PIC uses interpreted Basic and, of course, there are 8051 microcontrollers with embedded basic (not strictly a PIC, they are made by other vendors). I have no issue with choice of language or compiler. I have several for the PIC, others for the 8051 clones, still others for PCs as well as PL/I and Fortran for CP/M. As long as they generate executable code it just doesn't matter. Religious wars over lanugage are a waste of time. --- In , "Cliff Griffin" <webring@r...> wrote: > That is a hardware prduct just as much as a software product, and if you are > going to call Basic an interpreted language based on that, then you might as > well call C and Java interpreted also. > > Cliff > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> > To: <> > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 12:50 PM > Subject: [piclist] Re: Best PIC Compiler??? > > > > Well, OOPIC (www.oopic.com) is based on the 16F877 and is totally > > interpreted, contains many built-in objects and can be programmed in > > Basic, C or Java. It's a PIC and it uses interpreted basic. > > > > > > --- In , "Cliff Griffin" <webring@r...> wrote: > > > As far as PIC's are concerned, basic is NOT an interpreted > > language. I do > > > not know of even a single basic interpreter on the market for > > PIC's. The > > > Basic Stamp products by Parallax utilize an interpreter, but that > > is a whole > > > different product--they didn't even make the language tokenizing > > available > > > until recently. The basic compilers for PIC's are just that-- > > compilers. > > > > > > When I was tired of assembly and started looking for a compiler, I > > talked > > > with a couple guys who used more than one compiler. For some > > reason, people > > > tend to suggest whatever they are using, regardless of their > > experience or > > > lack thereof. I am no exception. Everybody who I talked with that > > used > > > PicBasic Pro used it primarily, regardless of how many other > > compilers they > > > have tried. Nobody had a copy that gathered digital dust. After I > > bought it, > > > I had no reason to try another compiler. It had no bugs in any of my > > > (efficient) code, and they quickly eliminate or publish work- > > arounds the few > > > bugs that do pass through--within days, at the worst. It has a more > > > extensive command library than any other product, it is more mature > > than any > > > other product, and I can't imagine a better support structure. They > > have > > > guys in-house that are very helpful, the distributor who I bought > > it from, > > > Bruce Reynolds at www.rentron.com has been extremely helpful, and > > there is a > > > PicBasic list that is far more active than this one. (Bruce's help > > has been > > > so good that I would rather pay a premium to him than buy through a > > discount > > > house--fortunately, his prices are competitive, too.) > > > > > > PicBasic Pro also has the advantage of being very Basic Stamp II > > compatible, > > > for those who are moving up. You can use a free MicroCode Studio > > editor > > > which has a debugger that works with the '877's, or pay a small fee > > to get > > > the Pro version and use the debugger with all PIC compatible chips. > > You can > > > view any of your assembly code if you wish, too--although I have > > only had to > > > do so out of curiosity. Upgrades are regular, about every 4-6 > > months, and > > > include new PIC capabilities as well as new commands--for only $10, > > a very > > > small price. > > > > > > I've programmed quite a few C programs, primarily for Windows, but > > > personally, for PIC's, I prefer PicBasic Pro--at $250, you can't get > > > anywhere near the power from a similarly priced C product. You can > > even use > > > PBP for free at www.compilespot.com . (I haven't been there, just > > heard > > > about it.) > > > > > > Cliff > > > (happy customer) > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> > > > To: <> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:33 AM > > > Subject: [piclist] Re: Best PIC Compiler??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second question first: Basic has a lot of included functions > > because > > > > it is generally an interpreted language. That is, there is an > > > > interpreter running inside the PIC that processes tokenized Basic > > > > programs and the interpreter has a lot of built-in stuff. Not > > > > always, CH Flash Basic generates assembly code and allows you to > > view > > > > the assembly code in a panel alongside the Basic code. > > > > > > > > Generally, if you are writing in assembly or c you will have > > > > libraries of code, yours or something supplied with the compiler. > > > > But these are microcontrollers - they are designed to take > > > > measurements and toggle bits, not simulate weather. > > > > > > > > Look at cc5x - there is a limited FREE version that works quite > > > > well. It has a built-in code limit but that can be overcome by > > > > linking multiple modules. I have been tempted to buy the full > > > > version - it is 'reasonably' priced and generates pretty good > > code. > > > > > > > > Also, Hi Tech has a free version of their c compiler and it is > > also > > > > somewhat limited but quite good because it is the standard used by > > > > Microchip. Very good code generation when optimized. > > > > > > > > Truth be known, I like assembly language. There is a macro > > library > > > > somewhere on the internet (probably www.piclist.com) that > > implements > > > > the control structures of c. Various types of loops, etc. > > > > > > > > Of course multi-byte arithmetic routines are also available. > > Adding > > > > macros for indexing arrays is trivial. Further, it is possible to > > > > write application specific macros that make the program operation > > > > comprehensible without adding bloat. With conditional assembly > > it is > > > > possible to support multiple hardware variations with a common > > code > > > > base. > > > > > > > > And all of the above can be done in c. But I always have to look > > at > > > > the generated code to be certain the compiler is doing the right > > > > thing. Especially when my 'obviously correct' program in doing > > > > something quite unusual. > > > > > > > > Good luck! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "larrwill202wl" > > <larrwill202wl@y...> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > I have been using MPLAB and assembler, primarily because it's > > FREE, > > > > > but I have had enough of assembler and would like to get a > > > > compiler. > > > > > Any opinions and info on the following would be appreciated. Any > > > > > other recommendations are also welcome. > > > > > Also, why do the Basic compilers offer so many more included > > > > > functions than C? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > > > > > Basic: > > > > > Basic Micro - MBasic > > > > > Melabs - Pic Basic > > > > > > > > > > C: > > > > > FED > > > > > C2C > > > > > CCS - Seems like the best choice, but the high cost of the > > windows > > > > > version and annual update fee push this to the bottom of the > > pile. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the > > > instructions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the > instructions > > > > > > > > > |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Re: Best PIC Compiler??? - Bert Drake - Apr 18 17:19:00 2003
|
Ok, I was going to stay out of this debate, but just
can't...
First, there is the "old school" interepreted languages,
where the computer reads the text file and executes it. Other than unix shell
scripts, and some macros, that is pretty much history. These are severely
slow.
Next we have bytecode interpreted languages that compile
down to tokens or bytecodes that are then run in an intrepreted fashion. Examples of
this are the BasicStamp and ooPIC, and Visual Basic and Java, Perl, and many others.
There are C like "compilers" that work in this fashion, but a "real" C compiler does
not. (Many of these, like Perl, appear to be the first type, but actually do a real
quick "compile" into tokens in memory, then run the program.) The BasicStamp has a
compiler to produce the token file, which is then loaded into a PIC that is preprogrammed
with the BasicStamp intrepreter.
Finally there are the "real" compilers which directly
(or indirectly, usually via an assembler) generate actual machine instructions for the
target platform. That is what PicBasic and *all* the PIC C compilers I'm aware of
are. These generate the fastest most efficient code. Examples are PicBasic,
C2C, cc5x, CCS, HighTech C, etc. While many of these can be loaded into a pic
via a bootloader, their main focus is producing complete programs that can be programmed
into a blank PIC using a programmer.
|
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Best PIC Compiler??? - Cliff Griffin - Apr 19 0:35:00 2003
|
The original question was asking for information about compilers. You made a general statement that implied most PIC basics are interpreted--and they aren't--and you can't even program a PIC with the OOPic example you used. You have to program an OOPic product with it--the same as with the Basic Stamps and their interpreted language--you have to buy their interpreter chips. So the OOPic doesn't even fit the description of what was originally requested. I guess that's why we like compilers--you can program the code to any Pic. Cliff ----- Original Message ----- From: "rtstofer" <> To: <> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 1:23 PM Subject: [piclist] Re: Best PIC Compiler??? > > And on this PIC they are indeed interpreted. The issue isn't > interpreted versus compiled. It is just to point out that at least > one PIC uses interpreted Basic and, of course, there are 8051 > microcontrollers with embedded basic (not strictly a PIC, they are > made by other vendors). > > I have no issue with choice of language or compiler. I have several > for the PIC, others for the 8051 clones, still others for PCs as well > as PL/I and Fortran for CP/M. As long as they generate executable > code it just doesn't matter. Religious wars over lanugage are a > waste of time. > > --- In , "Cliff Griffin" <webring@r...> wrote: > > That is a hardware prduct just as much as a software product, and > if you are > > going to call Basic an interpreted language based on that, then you > might as > > well call C and Java interpreted also. > > > > Cliff > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> > > To: <> > > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 12:50 PM > > Subject: [piclist] Re: Best PIC Compiler??? > > > > > > > > > > Well, OOPIC (www.oopic.com) is based on the 16F877 and is totally > > > interpreted, contains many built-in objects and can be programmed > in > > > Basic, C or Java. It's a PIC and it uses interpreted basic. > > > > > > > > > --- In , "Cliff Griffin" <webring@r...> > wrote: > > > > As far as PIC's are concerned, basic is NOT an interpreted > > > language. I do > > > > not know of even a single basic interpreter on the market for > > > PIC's. The > > > > Basic Stamp products by Parallax utilize an interpreter, but > that > > > is a whole > > > > different product--they didn't even make the language tokenizing > > > available > > > > until recently. The basic compilers for PIC's are just that-- > > > compilers. > > > > > > > > When I was tired of assembly and started looking for a > compiler, I > > > talked > > > > with a couple guys who used more than one compiler. For some > > > reason, people > > > > tend to suggest whatever they are using, regardless of their > > > experience or > > > > lack thereof. I am no exception. Everybody who I talked with > that > > > used > > > > PicBasic Pro used it primarily, regardless of how many other > > > compilers they > > > > have tried. Nobody had a copy that gathered digital dust. After > I > > > bought it, > > > > I had no reason to try another compiler. It had no bugs in any > of my > > > > (efficient) code, and they quickly eliminate or publish work- > > > arounds the few > > > > bugs that do pass through--within days, at the worst. It has a > more > > > > extensive command library than any other product, it is more > mature > > > than any > > > > other product, and I can't imagine a better support structure. > They > > > have > > > > guys in-house that are very helpful, the distributor who I > bought > > > it from, > > > > Bruce Reynolds at www.rentron.com has been extremely helpful, > and > > > there is a > > > > PicBasic list that is far more active than this one. (Bruce's > help > > > has been > > > > so good that I would rather pay a premium to him than buy > through a > > > discount > > > > house--fortunately, his prices are competitive, too.) > > > > > > > > PicBasic Pro also has the advantage of being very Basic Stamp II > > > compatible, > > > > for those who are moving up. You can use a free MicroCode Studio > > > editor > > > > which has a debugger that works with the '877's, or pay a small > fee > > > to get > > > > the Pro version and use the debugger with all PIC compatible > chips. > > > You can > > > > view any of your assembly code if you wish, too--although I have > > > only had to > > > > do so out of curiosity. Upgrades are regular, about every 4-6 > > > months, and > > > > include new PIC capabilities as well as new commands--for only > $10, > > > a very > > > > small price. > > > > > > > > I've programmed quite a few C programs, primarily for Windows, > but > > > > personally, for PIC's, I prefer PicBasic Pro--at $250, you > can't get > > > > anywhere near the power from a similarly priced C product. You > can > > > even use > > > > PBP for free at www.compilespot.com . (I haven't been there, > just > > > heard > > > > about it.) > > > > > > > > Cliff > > > > (happy customer) > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> > > > > To: <> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 8:33 AM > > > > Subject: [piclist] Re: Best PIC Compiler??? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Second question first: Basic has a lot of included functions > > > because > > > > > it is generally an interpreted language. That is, there is an > > > > > interpreter running inside the PIC that processes tokenized > Basic > > > > > programs and the interpreter has a lot of built-in stuff. Not > > > > > always, CH Flash Basic generates assembly code and allows you > to > > > view > > > > > the assembly code in a panel alongside the Basic code. > > > > > > > > > > Generally, if you are writing in assembly or c you will have > > > > > libraries of code, yours or something supplied with the > compiler. > > > > > But these are microcontrollers - they are designed to take > > > > > measurements and toggle bits, not simulate weather. > > > > > > > > > > Look at cc5x - there is a limited FREE version that works > quite > > > > > well. It has a built-in code limit but that can be overcome > by > > > > > linking multiple modules. I have been tempted to buy the full > > > > > version - it is 'reasonably' priced and generates pretty good > > > code. > > > > > > > > > > Also, Hi Tech has a free version of their c compiler and it is > > > also > > > > > somewhat limited but quite good because it is the standard > used by > > > > > Microchip. Very good code generation when optimized. > > > > > > > > > > Truth be known, I like assembly language. There is a macro > > > library > > > > > somewhere on the internet (probably www.piclist.com) that > > > implements > > > > > the control structures of c. Various types of loops, etc. > > > > > > > > > > Of course multi-byte arithmetic routines are also available. > > > Adding > > > > > macros for indexing arrays is trivial. Further, it is > possible to > > > > > write application specific macros that make the program > operation > > > > > comprehensible without adding bloat. With conditional > assembly > > > it is > > > > > possible to support multiple hardware variations with a common > > > code > > > > > base. > > > > > > > > > > And all of the above can be done in c. But I always have to > look > > > at > > > > > the generated code to be certain the compiler is doing the > right > > > > > thing. Especially when my 'obviously correct' program in > doing > > > > > something quite unusual. > > > > > > > > > > Good luck! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "larrwill202wl" > > > <larrwill202wl@y...> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > I have been using MPLAB and assembler, primarily because > it's > > > FREE, > > > > > > but I have had enough of assembler and would like to get a > > > > > compiler. > > > > > > Any opinions and info on the following would be > appreciated. Any > > > > > > other recommendations are also welcome. > > > > > > Also, why do the Basic compilers offer so many more included > > > > > > functions than C? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks... > > > > > > > > > > > > Basic: > > > > > > Basic Micro - MBasic > > > > > > Melabs - Pic Basic > > > > > > > > > > > > C: > > > > > > FED > > > > > > C2C > > > > > > CCS - Seems like the best choice, but the high cost of the > > > windows > > > > > > version and annual update fee push this to the bottom of the > > > pile. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow > the > > > > instructions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the > > instructions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )
Re: Best PIC Compiler??? - larrwill202wl - Apr 23 12:56:00 2003
|
Thanks for all the replies. I'm thinking of going with the MBasic compiler from Basic Micro. The MBasic Pro is less expensive than PicBasic Pro and comes standard with an IDE. The choice seems too obvious, any reason why Pic Basic would be a better choice than MBasic? Thanks again --- In , "larrwill202wl" <larrwill202wl@y...> wrote: > Hi All, > I have been using MPLAB and assembler, primarily because it's FREE, > but I have had enough of assembler and would like to get a compiler. > Any opinions and info on the following would be appreciated. Any > other recommendations are also welcome. > Also, why do the Basic compilers offer so many more included > functions than C? > > Thanks... > > Basic: > Basic Micro - MBasic > Melabs - Pic Basic > > C: > FED > C2C > CCS - Seems like the best choice, but the high cost of the windows > version and annual update fee push this to the bottom of the pile. |
(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )