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.
--- 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.
--- 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.
--- 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.
on the left, click on links, then software then basic.
Dave
Reply by Stef Mientki●July 3, 20052005-07-03
>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
Reply by Dave Mucha●July 2, 20052005-07-02
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
Seems Rentron offers both Proton+ and CH Basic a well as a bunch of
other stuff.
Some neat programs for beginners as well.
Dave
Reply by Dave Mucha●July 2, 20052005-07-02
--- 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
Reply by Stef Mientki●July 2, 20052005-07-02
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
>
>
Reply by JCullins●July 2, 20052005-07-02
Well Michael it is worth every penny of it.
One consolation is, to get future upgrades it is
only $25.00 unlike some C compilers that are the same price as buying it a
gain.
Jim
----- 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.