Ability to pay per MCU License.

[CuriousOne]

Hello.

There is a free student edition of PBP, and then more costy, silver version, with better MCU support.

What if you add ability to buy additional MCU support for less price?

I mean, someone should be able to buy a license for specific MCU, for say $1.99 or 4.99 or something like that.

For example, I have a student edition on my main machine and it works just fine, I'd like to have support for 16F887 (student edition only supports 16F886), but I don't need extra features or MCU's that are included in silver package, which costs $119. So I'd prefer to pay $5-10 per MCU, and add only couple of MCU's to my student license to get things going.

[Ioannis]

Maybe this is a nice idea but I do not think it will happen.

Maybe the decline interest for PBP, maybe the resources to do that or other reasons...

It just won't.

Ioannis

[CuriousOne]

Well that's sad, because microtransactions are current market trend and they're doing exceptionally well.

[AvionicsMaster1]

I'm really just a dabbler but does that mean I should quit using PBP and learn a new language? If PBP isn't getting supported is it worth using it in projects?

[Ioannis]

I think it is still supported in a more in-frequent way though.

Still is the easiest language to learn, use and develop a project in no-time. Also produces less or equal sized code and same speed as C.

So, why look for other environment? You have a compiler that works fine, asks for nothing and gives you solid code to run.

Ioannis

[mpgmike]

Also produces less or equal sized code and same speed as C.

So, why look for other environment? You have a compiler that works fine, asks for nothing and gives you solid code to run.

Ioannis
XC8 has several Optimization levels, PBP has one (as good as it gets). PBP Hex file competes nicely with the highest optimization level for XC8 for both speed of execution and memory usage.

[Ioannis]

Nice to have a confirmation on this.

Though I would like to have on PBP local variables and passing values to subs as C does. This would produce even more efficient code.

But anyway, I guess this won't come in the near (or far) future.

Ioannis

[mpgmike]

I declare "b0 VAR BYTE" and use it as a generic local variable in subroutines. I can have b1, b2, or even w0, w1... etc. I learned that back in my PICAXE days. It's common to declare "int i;" in C to use in for() loops, where "i" is local.

[pedja089]

I use TmpB1... TmpW1... TmpL1 etc...
Passing values to sub cant make nothing for better code efficiently.
It can make it just look better. Behind curtain, ASM code is same, or worse if compiler move vars for you.

[tumbleweed]

Passing values to sub cant make nothing for better code efficiently
That's not necessarily true... it all depends on how the compiler allocates variables, how much your program uses, and the device.

If "passed" variables are allocated in access memory vs banked memory the resulting code can be much smaller.
You just need a good compiler.

[pedja089]

Then declare variable in BANKA. And use it.
I have one of best compilers for pic. It iscalled PicBasic Pro :)
And pbp have very good optimization. And wouln't benefit in program size from adding passable variables. It would just be visualy neater code.
It have usercommand that do exactly that. And I see verry little use of it.

[CuriousOne]

LOL, why this thread turned into another wishlist? :D I've asked what is perfectly doable and needs only one executable to be updated....