Opinions on the best PIC BASIC compiler?

Started by Bob Hyland May 23, 2007
I've been looking at different PIC BASIC compilers. What I am looking
for:

- Performance (efficient code)
- ICD (in circuit debugging)
- Good support for a wide variety of MicroChip MPU's

So far, I am considering the following compilers:
- PIC BASIC PRO (seems like their ICD is limited to a few chips?)
- mikroBasic (built in ICD support)
- Proton PIC Basic (http://www.protongeeks.com/) Seperate ICD SW
- others?

I appreciate any input. Oh, and sorry if this starts any infighting,
as everyone seems to have their favorites.

Thanks,

Bob H.
I use Wiz-C and PicKey from www.fored.co.uk - very good rapid development and simulation.

Group at yahoo = F...

Paul.

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Hyland
To: p...
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:53 PM
Subject: [SPAM] [piclist] Opinions on the best PIC BASIC compiler?
I've been looking at different PIC BASIC compilers. What I am looking
for:

- Performance (efficient code)
- ICD (in circuit debugging)
- Good support for a wide variety of MicroChip MPU's

So far, I am considering the following compilers:
- PIC BASIC PRO (seems like their ICD is limited to a few chips?)
- mikroBasic (built in ICD support)
- Proton PIC Basic (http://www.protongeeks.com/) Seperate ICD SW
- others?

I appreciate any input. Oh, and sorry if this starts any infighting,
as everyone seems to have their favorites.

Thanks,

Bob H.
oops - sorry, just read my reply and the subject header!
Wiz-C is for C of course you need BASIC. Doh!

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Snuggs
To: p...
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] [piclist] Opinions on the best PIC BASIC compiler?
mikroBasic gives big code. i trnanslate program from assembler to
mikroBasic. Original was 1,8k, mikroBasic for PIC16F877A gives 3,8K,
for PIC18F452 6,5 K !!! Are all compilers so hungry ?
i translated asm program for PIC16F877A to mikroBasic. Ogiginal was 1,8k,
mikroBasic gives 3,8k. i change chip to PIC18F452. Result was 6,5k !!!
are all compilers so hungry ?
--- In p..., vasseff wrote:
>
> mikroBasic gives big code. i trnanslate program from assembler to
> mikroBasic. Original was 1,8k, mikroBasic for PIC16F877A gives
3,8K,
> for PIC18F452 6,5 K !!! Are all compilers so hungry ?

Basically, yes.

The compiler has a runtime that tends to be large, and in general,
the compiler will create code to cover all possibilities, so it will
tend to be large. There are boundaries on what the code will need
to deal with that you may know, but the compiler doesn't.

Optimization for C is somewhat better developed than Basic, and some
C compilers can produce amazingly tight code on some platforms.
Unfortunately, the 8 bit PICs aren't that well suited to C, so I
haven't seen a PIC C compiler that does a good job. The PIC18 is a
little better in this respect than the 14 bit core parts, but still
far from good. The 16-bit parts (dsPIC, PIC24) are a lot better,
but still nothing like the PC.

The good news is that because much of the overhead is in the
runtime, the code probably won't grow all that quickly. If you
doubled the size of your assembler application, I wouldn't expect
the corresponding compiled code to double. But, if you added 1K to
your assembler code, I would expect the compiled code to grow by
more than 1K.

--McD
On 20/06/07, vasseff wrote:
> i translated asm program for PIC16F877A to mikroBasic. Ogiginal was 1,8k,
> mikroBasic gives 3,8k. i change chip to PIC18F452. Result was 6,5k !!!
> are all compilers so hungry ?

depends on the translation, but yes compilers are hungry, I like
picbasicpro, its hungry but reportedly very stable code.