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

hello,
I have been tinkering with the 16x84 for several years learning a
little bit of assembly. However, I find my self wanting to make more
involved programs that would be very involved to make in assembly.
The most popular alternative appears to be PicBasic Pro but it kills
me to have to spend $250 (i'll admit it, i'm cheap). I am pretty
familiar with basic and basic would be a lot easier to play with than
assembly. What alternatives are available.

Thanks,
Michael





(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Bloom

To: p...@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 1:08 AM

Subject: [piclist] assembly vs. picbasic, etc

hello,
     I have been tinkering with the 16x84 for several years learning a
little bit of assembly.  However, I find my self wanting to make more
involved programs that would be very involved to make in assembly. 
The most popular alternative appears to be PicBasic Pro but it kills
me to have to spend $250 (i'll admit it, i'm cheap).  I am pretty
familiar with basic and basic would be a lot easier to play with than
assembly.  What alternatives are available.

Thanks,
Michael


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 )

you could try one of the free compilers
JAL, PICbsc
or one that has a free lite version
XCSB and more of them

Stef

Michael Bloom wrote:

>hello,
> I have been tinkering with the 16x84 for several years learning a
>little bit of assembly. However, I find my self wanting to make more
>involved programs that would be very involved to make in assembly.
>The most popular alternative appears to be PicBasic Pro but it kills
>me to have to spend $250 (i'll admit it, i'm cheap). I am pretty
>familiar with basic and basic would be a lot easier to play with than
>assembly. What alternatives are available.
>
>Thanks,
>Michael >to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions
>Yahoo! Groups Links

______________________________
Stellaris® MCU Family: New Parts, New Package, New Price.


(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In piclist@picl..., "Michael Bloom" <michaelbloom72@y...>
wrote:
> hello,
> I have been tinkering with the 16x84 for several years learning a
> little bit of assembly. However, I find my self wanting to make more
> involved programs that would be very involved to make in assembly.
> The most popular alternative appears to be PicBasic Pro but it kills
> me to have to spend $250 (i'll admit it, i'm cheap). I am pretty
> familiar with basic and basic would be a lot easier to play with than
> assembly. What alternatives are available.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael

As I understand there are a few choices.

PIC Basic PRO as you mentioned.

Proton Plus is another alternative. faster upgrades and they cost
less. You can even get a special from the author. they have their
own forum.
http://www.picbasic.org/proton_compiler.php

XCSB has a free version of it's structured Basic. (I'm curious how
similar it is to FastAVR's structured basic, also free)
http://www.xcprod.com/titan/XCSB/

Al Williams of BasicStamp fame has a program SeaBas that looks
interesting. It does not look to be full featured but the concept is
interesting.
http://www.awce.com/seabass.htm

And there is the Oshonsoft stuff. I have not seen this mentioned
very often and have not heard of a users group for it either.
Maybe it is just too easy and doesn't need a group ?
http://www.oshonsoft.com/pic.html There may be more, but that is my short list, and also the only ones
in the links section.

My comments about them are that although PicBasicPRO is the most
common and most often discusssed, the people who have used both PBP
and Proton+ seem to prefer Proton+ hands down.

As a side note, it seems that if XCSB and FastAVR are even close to
being compatable, that would open the door to selective use of both
platforms. An interesting idea.

And, the one thing not mentioned is C. C is not terribly hard to
learn and offers a middle ground between Basic and Asm. some say it
is as weak as basic and as confusing as ASM others say it is as easy
to use as basic and as fast as ASM, but it probably is the most used
language programming. My wild guess. probably should have a poll,
but the feature is not turned on for this list.

Dave



(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Op's forgot CH Basic as another.
http://www.celestialhorizons.com/compilers/Flash/rentron.htm

or

http://www.celestialhorizons.com/

Seems Rentron offers both Proton+ and CH Basic a well as a bunch of
other stuff.

Some neat programs for beginners as well.

Dave



(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

du'oh...

Basic18
Structured Basic for the PIC18 Series microcontroller
http://www.midwest-software.com/Basic18/basic18.htm I just created a software folder in the links section and created two
subdirectories, one for Basic another for C

If you have links please post them.
Dave




(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

>I just created a software folder in the links section and created two
>subdirectories, one for Basic another for C
>
>If you have links please post them. >
Dave,
can we see that link list ?

thanks,
Stef Mientki >Dave




(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In piclist@picl..., Stef Mientki <s.mientki@m...> wrote:
>
> >I just created a software folder in the links section and created two
> >subdirectories, one for Basic another for C
> >
> >If you have links please post them.
> >
> >
> >
> Dave,
> can we see that link list ? Sure !

I forget how many people read only e-mail because I only read these
on-line.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piclist

on the left, click on links, then software then basic.

Dave


______________________________
Stellaris® MCU Family: New Parts, New Package, New Price.


(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In piclist@picl..., "Dave Mucha" <dave_mucha@y...> wrote:

> XCSB has a free version of it's structured Basic. (I'm curious how
> similar it is to FastAVR's structured basic, also free)

I have had a look at the FastAVR manual and it apears that both of
these BASIC dialects are very different. Even if you had an automated
conversion process for converting from one to the other you would
probably need to do a lot of manual editing since XCSB supports
overloaded functions and FastAVR does not.

What's an overloaded function?

This is where two or more functions have the same name but different
parameters. The compiler decides which one to use based on the
parameters you supply. This allows the user to write versions of a
function that are optimised for their parameters.

e.g.

proc PRINT(byte arg)
// version 1
endproc

proc PRINT(int arg)
// version 2
endproc

proc PRINT(long arg)
// version 3
endproc then when you use PRINT like this:

byte XA, XB
int YA, YB
long WA, WB PRINT(XA + XB) // compiler selects version 1

PRINT(YA + YB) // compiler selects version 2

PRINT(WA + WB) // compiler selects version 3 Producing an automated conversion tool that understands this would be
VERY hard.

Regards
Sergio Masci

http://www.xcprod.com/titan/XCSB - optimising PIC compiler
FREE for personal non-commercial use

.




(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In piclist@picl..., "Michael Bloom" <michaelbloom72@y...>
wrote:
> hello,
> I have been tinkering with the 16x84 for several years learning a
> little bit of assembly. However, I find my self wanting to make more
> involved programs that would be very involved to make in assembly.
> The most popular alternative appears to be PicBasic Pro but it kills
> me to have to spend $250 (i'll admit it, i'm cheap). I am pretty
> familiar with basic and basic would be a lot easier to play with than
> assembly. What alternatives are available.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael

The LITE version of XCSB is available FREE of charge for personal
non-commercial use. It has many advanced features that PicBasic Pro
does not. It also produces much more compact and faster executables
than PicBasic Pro. There are many situations where the XCSB compiler
will convert several BASIC statements into just one or two machine
code instructions. The quality of the output is comparible to high end
expensive C compilers.

Regards
Sergio Masci

http://www.xcprod.com/titan/XCSB - optimising PIC compiler
FREE for personal non-commercial use

.




(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Hi to the list,

I just extended the support on our PICC compiler (now 8.05PL2), and when I
select the midrange processor (HPDPIC ide), I get a table of PICs, with the
right hand column clipped in half. They are are 16F8xx, and an 'L' (?), but
I've had to guess on the processors. Anyone have the last column data?

HPDPIC is workable, but I'm waiting for the HI=TIDE for the PICC compiler
(available now on the PIC 18 compiler). I'm finding that the Visual C editor
and a batch file (I need a make file) work about as well.

Alan KM6VV





(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

--- In piclist@picl..., KM6VV <KM6VV@a...> wrote:
> Hi to the list,
>
> I just extended the support on our PICC compiler (now 8.05PL2),
and when I
> select the midrange processor (HPDPIC ide), I get a table of PICs,
with the
> right hand column clipped in half. They are are 16F8xx, and
an 'L' (?), but
> I've had to guess on the processors. Anyone have the last column
data?
>
> HPDPIC is workable, but I'm waiting for the HI=TIDE for the PICC
compiler
> (available now on the PIC 18 compiler). I'm finding that the
Visual C editor
> and a batch file (I need a make file) work about as well.
>
> Alan KM6VV

This page on Hi-tech's website shows the microcontrollers supported.
http://www.htsoft.com/products/picccompiler.php

I don't have 8.05PL2 but the last column on V8.02 PL1 is:

( ) 16F818
(*) 16F819
( ) 16F83
( ) 16F84
( ) 16F84A
( ) 16F87
( ) 16F870
( ) 16F871
( ) 16F872
( ) 16F873
( ) 16F873A
( ) 16F874
( ) 16F874A
( ) 16F876
( ) 16F876A
( ) 16F877
( ) 16F877A
( ) 16F88
( ) 16LC74B <-- the 'L' is for low voltage



(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Hi John,

Thanks! That's it, my last column has 10 entries, the 16F873 through 16LC74B.

And I had just gone back to the MicroChip processor page, but it's in a somewhat
scrambled order.

Alan KM6VV john wrote:

> --- In piclist@picl..., KM6VV <KM6VV@a...> wrote:
>
>>Hi to the list,
>>
>>I just extended the support on our PICC compiler (now 8.05PL2),
>
> and when I
>
>>select the midrange processor (HPDPIC ide), I get a table of PICs,
>
> with the
>
>>right hand column clipped in half. They are are 16F8xx, and
>
> an 'L' (?), but
>
>>I've had to guess on the processors. Anyone have the last column
>
> data?
>
>>HPDPIC is workable, but I'm waiting for the HI=TIDE for the PICC
>
> compiler
>
>>(available now on the PIC 18 compiler). I'm finding that the
>
> Visual C editor
>
>>and a batch file (I need a make file) work about as well.
>>
>>Alan KM6VV > This page on Hi-tech's website shows the microcontrollers supported.
> http://www.htsoft.com/products/picccompiler.php
>
> I don't have 8.05PL2 but the last column on V8.02 PL1 is:
>
> ( ) 16F818
> (*) 16F819
> ( ) 16F83
> ( ) 16F84
> ( ) 16F84A
> ( ) 16F87
> ( ) 16F870
> ( ) 16F871
> ( ) 16F872
> ( ) 16F873
> ( ) 16F873A
> ( ) 16F874
> ( ) 16F874A
> ( ) 16F876
> ( ) 16F876A
> ( ) 16F877
> ( ) 16F877A
> ( ) 16F88
> ( ) 16LC74B <-- the 'L' is for low voltage





(You need to be a member of piclist -- send a blank email to piclist-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Bloom

To: p...@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 7:08 AM

Subject: [piclist] assembly vs. picbasic, etc

hello,
     I have been tinkering with the 16x84 for several years learning a
little bit of assembly.  However, I find my self wanting to make more
involved programs that would be very involved to make in assembly. 
The most popular alternative appears to be PicBasic Pro but it kills
me to have to spend $250 (i'll admit it, i'm cheap).  I am pretty
familiar with basic and basic would be a lot easier to play with than
assembly.  What alternatives are available.

Thanks,
Michael


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 )