A couple things you might not like about JAL: no string support and no array support. A couple of the members in the jallist have written array libraries - for me it looked like more code overhead than I wanted. I've worked around both of these shortcomings without trouble. CC5X is good too, but there's no accurate delay library. At least with the free version. Vardelay for JAL is very accurate. One of these days I'll get around to getting JAL to work with an MMC/SD. Was going to use the MMC for my balloon flight computer but I shelved it quickly in favor of a 512K EEPROM. Mike --- In , "Nigel Symes" <symesbris@h...> wrote: > At the moment, real life is the only project I've got time for :( > > I like the look of JAL. > > I understand that ANSI C isn't really feasible with the PIC RISC instruction set. I love C but I can see JAL is much better suited to PICs. > > Next chance I have I'll get into some JAL.

At the moment, real life is the only project I've got time for :(

I like the look of JAL.

I understand that ANSI C isn't really feasible with the PIC RISC instruction set. I love C but I can see JAL is much better suited to PICs.

Next chance I have I'll get into some JAL.

Since I have so many PICs sitting around and I saw www.futurlec.com have STA013 for US$6.90 and CS4334 DACs fro US$2.90, I thought one of my next projects should be to create an MP3 player - I know it has been done to death but what the hay!

Maybe Olimex will accept a PCB design and make a free PCB for me ;)

Thanks,

Nigel

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

From: upand_at_them

To: p...@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 3:25 PM

Subject: [piclist] Re: MPLAB 5.70.40 is integ .... Sorry, coincidence, so new thread. Is it worth it?

What projects are you working on? I like JAL, because I'm a programmer and can write my own libraries if one of the included ones don't work right (I had to write my own UART, software serial, I2C, and 1-wire). I've also used CC5X, but there's a code limit on the free version (and I'm a cheap SOB). If you don't have much of a programming background I'd suggest sticking with one compiler for a while (I'd rather build stuff than spend time learning a new compiler). When you're really good and comfortable with one it makes it easier to try out or switch to a new one. There's also nothing wrong with assembly; some of my JAL libraries are written in assembly. Mike--- In p...@yahoogroups.com, "Nigel Symes" <symesbris@h...> wrote: > Yeah - I might have a closer look at JAL > ----- Original Message ----- > From: upand_at_them > To: p...@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 12:29 PM > Subject: [piclist] Re: MPLAB 5.70.40 is integ ... Sorry, coincidence, so new thread. Is it worth it?> > For hobbyists, I don't see a problem with JAL. > > Mike> --- In p...@yahoogroups.com, "Nigel Symes" <symesbris@h...> wrote: > > If only there was a viable open-source alternative for PIC like AVR- > GCC for AVR> > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions> > > > > -------------------------------- ---------- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > a.. To

to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions

--- In , "upand_at_them" <upand_at_them@y...> wrote: > > What projects are you working on? > > I like JAL, because I'm a programmer and can write my own libraries > if one of the included ones don't work right (I had to write my own > UART, software serial, I2C, and 1-wire). I've also used CC5X, but > there's a code limit on the free version (and I'm a cheap SOB). I also like JAL, (use it for everything from instrumentation to robotics, music synthesis... in fact the last big project on the list was 10-baseT interfacing and various libraries) and have been using it for about a year an a half. Silly me, the first language I learned was pascal... sherman set the wayback machine.... so JAL just fit right into my old limited programming language knowledge base. check out thier yahoo group jallist, lots of ppl helping each other with hints, libraries etc.... gb

What projects are you working on? I like JAL, because I'm a programmer and can write my own libraries if one of the included ones don't work right (I had to write my own UART, software serial, I2C, and 1-wire). I've also used CC5X, but there's a code limit on the free version (and I'm a cheap SOB). If you don't have much of a programming background I'd suggest sticking with one compiler for a while (I'd rather build stuff than spend time learning a new compiler). When you're really good and comfortable with one it makes it easier to try out or switch to a new one. There's also nothing wrong with assembly; some of my JAL libraries are written in assembly. Mike --- In , "Nigel Symes" <symesbris@h...> wrote: > Yeah - I might have a closer look at JAL > ----- Original Message ----- > From: upand_at_them > To: > Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 12:29 PM > Subject: [piclist] Re: MPLAB 5.70.40 is integ .... Sorry, coincidence, so new thread. Is it worth it? > For hobbyists, I don't see a problem with JAL. > > Mike > --- In , "Nigel Symes" <symesbris@h...> wrote: > > If only there was a viable open-source alternative for PIC like AVR- > GCC for AVR > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions > > > -------------------------------- ---------- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > a.. To

Yeah - I might have a closer look at JAL

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

From: upand_at_them

To: p...@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 12:29 PM

Subject: [piclist] Re: MPLAB 5.70.40 is integ .... Sorry, coincidence, so new thread. Is it worth it?

For hobbyists, I don't see a problem with JAL. Mike--- In p...@yahoogroups.com, "Nigel Symes" <symesbris@h...> wrote: > If only there was a viable open-source alternative for PIC like AVR- GCC for AVR

to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions

For hobbyists, I don't see a problem with JAL. Mike --- In , "Nigel Symes" <symesbris@h...> wrote: > If only there was a viable open-source alternative for PIC like AVR- GCC for AVR

--- In , Bruce Sam <persevreman@y...> wrote: > I have integrated MPLAB 5.70.40 with HI-TECH PICC compiler v8.02 PL1 but failed.When I only compiled just a simple .c file,it appear this message:MPLAB is unable to find output file "DELAY.HEX". > This may be due to a compile, assemble, or link process failure.Here is all I have done: > 1.Click on the Option menu in the mehu bar, and select Environment setup,in this new dialog box,I have setted Default language suite to HI-TECH PICC. > 2.Click on the Project menu in the menu bar,and select Install Language Tool,in here,I have setted the location of the compiler,assembler and linker of the HI-TECH compiler that I have installed.The executable for all three tools (compiler/assembler/linker) is setted to picc.exe. > 3.I have added two environment variable showed below: > HTC_ERR_FORMAT=Error[000] %f %l : %s > HTC_WARN_FORMAT=Warning[000] %f %l : %s > Even I have done above step,but it also not success. > How to solve this problem?I am using MPLAB-ICD not MPLAB- ICD2,so please don't advise me to use MPLAB v6.xx. > Any help will very appreciate! > Bruce Sam > Have you added #include <pic.h> ? If your code has something in it thats defined in pic.h like; __IDLOC(),__CONFIG(), or di() and you try to compile it without pic.h it will give you that error(MPLAB is unable to find output file...)

There is SDCC, an open-source C that is 'almost' ready according to Al Williams at http://tutor.al-williams.com/picc1.htm. I haven't tried it and I am not anxious to do so. It seems I spend a lot more time trying to figure out why compiled code doesn't work than I save by using the compiler in the first place. Most of my projects are well under 1000 lines of assembly code - it's a microcontroller, not a mainframe! But I admit that I am sometimes too lazy to work out the nitty- gritty details and that data structures are more clearly represented in C, so I use it from time to time. --- In , "Nigel Symes" <symesbris@h...> wrote: > If only there was a viable open-source alternative for PIC like AVR-GCC for AVR > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bennet Williams > To: > Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 6:07 AM > Subject: [piclist] Re: MPLAB 5.70.40 is integ .... Sorry, coincidence, so new thread. Is it worth it? > It's not just you. I bought the CCS C Compiler. It is a great > compiler that I can no longer live without, but I am appalled that > you can't get bug fixes for more than 30 days. If I would have had a > better choice, I would have went with it instead of CCS. I'm sure > they know that their (real) competitors also have crappy support. > > BRW > > --- In , "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote: > > > > > > I don't have much of an issue with the first cost, it is the > > maintenance fee that keeps me from buying their product. I don't > > expect free upgrades but I absolutely expect free fixes to a > product > > found to be defective after I purchased it. But that's just me... > > > > I have used the free version, PIC C Lite, and it works quite well. > > I particularly like being able to put function pointers in state > > tables. CC5X won't allow this. > > > > As I would integrate PIC C into MPLAB, I don't see the advantage of > > the Windows versions with yet another IDE. I only use 14 bit parts > > (no real reason, just works out that way) so I would only need one > > version and that would cost just $125. Not a staggering amount. > > But the maintenance fee is out of the question... > > > to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions > > > ------------------------------- ----------- > Yahoo! Groups Links > > a.. To

If only there was a viable open-source alternative for PIC like AVR-GCC for AVR

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

From: Bennet Williams

To: p...@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 6:07 AM

Subject: [piclist] Re: MPLAB 5.70.40 is integ .... Sorry, coincidence, so new thread. Is it worth it?

It's not just you. I bought the CCS C Compiler. It is a great compiler that I can no longer live without, but I am appalled that you can't get bug fixes for more than 30 days. If I would have had a better choice, I would have went with it instead of CCS. I'm sure they know that their (real) competitors also have crappy support. BRW --- In p...@yahoogroups.com, "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote:> I don't have much of an issue with the first cost, it is the > maintenance fee that keeps me from buying their product. I don't > expect free upgrades but I absolutely expect free fixes to a product > found to be defective after I purchased it. But that's just me... > > I have used the free version, PIC C Lite, and it works quite well. > I particularly like being able to put function pointers in state > tables. CC5X won't allow this. > > As I would integrate PIC C into MPLAB, I don't see the advantage of > the Windows versions with yet another IDE. I only use 14 bit parts > (no real reason, just works out that way) so I would only need one > version and that would cost just $125. Not a staggering amount. > But the maintenance fee is out of the question...

to unsubscribe, go to http://www.yahoogroups.com and follow the instructions

It's not just you. I bought the CCS C Compiler. It is a great compiler that I can no longer live without, but I am appalled that you can't get bug fixes for more than 30 days. If I would have had a better choice, I would have went with it instead of CCS. I'm sure they know that their (real) competitors also have crappy support. BRW --- In , "rtstofer" <rstofer@p...> wrote: > > > I don't have much of an issue with the first cost, it is the > maintenance fee that keeps me from buying their product. I don't > expect free upgrades but I absolutely expect free fixes to a product > found to be defective after I purchased it. But that's just me... > > I have used the free version, PIC C Lite, and it works quite well. > I particularly like being able to put function pointers in state > tables. CC5X won't allow this. > > As I would integrate PIC C into MPLAB, I don't see the advantage of > the Windows versions with yet another IDE. I only use 14 bit parts > (no real reason, just works out that way) so I would only need one > version and that would cost just $125. Not a staggering amount. > But the maintenance fee is out of the question... >