Has anyone any experience with the new PBP3 and when would I use PBP3 instead of PBP2.60c?
Cheers
BrianT
Printable View
Has anyone any experience with the new PBP3 and when would I use PBP3 instead of PBP2.60c?
Cheers
BrianT
Overall, PBP3 do not give much new stuff for now, but seems it has a good potential on further version.
Like with any software, I don't see any good reason to stick to any older version. Help Melabs to pay the million bucks Darrel ask monthly :D ;)
There are definite improvements for those who like to "tinker under the hood". But those same improvments set the stage for even bigger things in the near future. Those future upgrades will require PBP3.x as a
starting point. I would encourage all to make the change now for several reasons:
1. It isn't that expensive
2. When you ask questions on this forum (especially if they are hard), you will get more/better responses. As an example, I find myself less likely to help someone who uses 16F parts or some early version of PBP. MELabs will probably also be more likely to want to help - if it comes to that.
3. The new features are good ones. Especially if you use a several different chip types in your projects. It is also possible to add some of your own commands.
4. You will need PBP3.x to take advantages of any patches, improvements, or the next version, when it comes out.
This part will need to be explained later, not sure if it is Available NOW, or the core of it is just Ready.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Linquis
There's also the PBP_HARDWAREDEF macro i'm not sure as of yet but however, not important for now I guess.
Lot of thing have been taken from MPASM assembler, and it's a good idea, but has some cool features you couldn't do before only with MPASM... in the end yeah worth it for more advanced programmer and good thing to have for less experimented one.
Upgrade? Yes, DO IT :D