Is BASIC dead ?

are we a dying breed here ? (BASIC)

seems that the forum is very slow, it was not always this way

i mentioned PBP to a younger colleague (in his early 30's) he did not seem to really know what BASIC was at all although he had heard of it, he is well educated

other than the often encountered snobbery about BASIC just wonder what the prognosis is ?

i find PBP to be a wonderful tool for us who do not do programming full time and are hardware oriented

i have seem some of the younger generations pound their keyboard for days trying to solve something when pulling out a meter or scope or magnifier and actually looking at the circuit might have instead solved the issue in moments

I hope not :o
But I fear the worst.

I love BASIC... I bought a PCjr in ~85 and used to hand type programs in from magazines.

I really think the folks over at melabs should/could do a better job of publicizing their product and getting the word out and posting projects and code snippets to keep it alive.

Possibly it was doomed from the start with the choice of the name "BASIC" (kinda puts it at a disadvantage with other languages that are not so "BASIC", regardless of how powerful the language actually is.

PBP produces pretty efficient code as far as I know.

I doubt there are many new coders that are choosing BASIC as the starting point for their new programming career.

just my .02

others thoughts??

dwight

Betamax was better than VHS and look what happened there.

Marketting is key. Arduino has a lot of visibility to the public.

Robert

It's not dead as long as M E Labs continues to add new part numbers to the library. The main advantage to "C" is you can write code for an Atmel chip and carry most of it over to a PIC or (name your micro). C is pretty much C and Basic s have so many flavors. This Basic was designed to vacuum up all the Stamp users into using PICs without the high price of "postage" :D

As for diminished traffic in here, we have suffered some tremendous losses in terms of pure talent as of late. The loss of Darrel Taylor is gut wrenching, Melanie never comes here anymore, where the heck is Mister_E , and BRUCE ? These 4 were instrumental in teaching many of us to program, period. Others of note, Sayzar taught me to use timers . . . and more. It will take time to develop new superstars and with luck maybe some of our old friends will return.

I have noticed that the sale of pbp3 licences (silver at $25us) are pretty slow, maybe it is dead.
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/pic-b...bs-30-off.html
pbp3 excels at tight fast code for 8bit core pics ,but much more feature rich and powerful chips are so cheap now that "bloatware" is not just restricted to the pc market . people are happy to use a 16mips atmel-mega328 with 2k of ram and 32k flash to blink a few leds.
waste waste waste. what happened to using the right tool for the job (just kidding ) @< $5 a chip why not kill it to death

I for one have to agree, A friend showed me an Arduino schetch that took an A/D reading and sent it out to the comm port and after it was compiled it took 17552 bytes of memory. WOW what bloat....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave

WOW what bloat....

---

Yes, but is dead easy for anyone to do it. Ready made libraries and you do not have to do anything but hit compile and program...

Fun is lost...

Ioannis

In my case, I used to program in assembler, but I wasn't comfortable with it. I could get the job done....eventually. I tried 'C' and just didn't like it. I've been programming with BASIC since I was 15 (a LONG time ago) and PBP allows me to write code fast - and spend more time playing with the new toy I made!

I, for one, will be using it as long as I can........

Last month I was helping colleague to finish his project for master, and he was using microC. To test hardware we just put some LCD print's, and monitor 4 inputs and count pulses on inputs, let say not more than 100 lines, and that used about 7K of code space, and it take almost 40mS for one pass without LCD...
Tried same with PBP and it took less than few mS with LCD print...

right, this is why we need to wave the flag and beat the drums about how fast PBP3 executes and how easy to use PBP3 is,
people hear 'basic' and they get all snooty
but i guess there is also some difference in how people's brains are wired these days, i don' think they teach or maybe even mention basic anymore

The vast majority of Microsoft macros are written in visual basic, and it's one of their key languages for developers, so the language is far from dead.
Write in what makes you comfortable. If you hope to get a job with your firmware skills, learn C. That's not new - been that way for 20 years at least.
If you already know basic, why would you use anything else?

I don't know if BASIC is dead, it does seem to take a back seat to C++ with the newer microcontroller development systems. I am more concerned about getting the 18F97J94 series added to the PB3 list. This series with the V-bat feature has an auto shutdown which allows for context saving of the data. It is the only 8-bit MC chip that will do this. We can still do all of the sleep modes(with other chips) because PBP2.6C allows in-line assembly, direct register access and handmade macros. This is will work but can be a total pain. I believe if MeLabs were to add this chip it would help many of us out there using solar or stand alone battery systems. Well, hope it happens. I noticed no recent updates to PB3? Is is running solid with the new MCS? Just a concerned hobbyist.

The first program language that I learned was Basic. Then, it came Fortran, Cobol and so on. C language came much later for me. So, needless to say that I feel much more comfortable programming PICs in Basic.

One thing is for sure. MELabs needs to keep up with the newest chips in order not to follow behind. It might be that in 10 or 20 years from now, the chips that we are used to program now will be outdated or discontinued by that time.

I also very much hope PBP will be here for a long time to come. I agree with everyone who commented before me that the website of MELabs could be upgraded to reflect the PBP3 changes. Also based on my personal experience beginners would benefit from more very basic examples (in BASIC of course).
3-4 years ago I started with PBP and never regretted it. After making a couple of LED flashing circuits, I put together my first EKG simulator program which was less than 50 lines and used only 5 or 6 of the available commands of the many of PBP programming languages. I got quite a kick out of it that the world famous manufacturer’s 12 Lead EKG Arrhythmia Analyzer after reading my PBP program generated EKG simulation gave it a “Normal Sinus Rhythm Normal EKG” label.

The Forum is a great help. As I see it when the forum took off everybody was kind of a beginner and this was the good time to start. New beginners who came later to the game often received the infamous advice from now grown up PBP experts: “read the manual!” Certainly excellent advice: read the manual. But how to read the manual is an art to itself.
In summary I think the gurus are taken care of but the complete beginners could use a lot of help from us and MElabs.

Steve

Yes, we've ALL been beginners at one point or another.
The problem is that there are a couple of regular users here. Then there are a lot of users who only pop in when they have an issue they need help with.
This means that the regular users have to answer the same questions (analog features needs to be disabled, how do you handle the configuration words and why does pin x change state when I write to pin y) over and over again.

IMHO RTFM type responses (preferably with a reference to a relevant section IN the manual) is valid when the answer to the question clearly IS stated in the manual. Sometimes it might just have been overlooked.

With Darrels unfortunate and sad departure this forum is now, as far as I know, without any MeLabs representative.

So, what do you want MeLabs to concentrate on?
1) Writing beginner tutorials and answering the same type of question over and over again or
2) Improving the core of PBP and adding features and chips, letting the forum users handle (1) above?

Personally I'd prefer (2) but in the end MeLabs has to do what's needed to keep the sales up - whatever that may be.

All WE can really do is stick around and help each other out the best we can.

/Henrik.

I agree with 2) above. After all, if we cannot help each other here, the last resource is Melabs itself, and they do help very well.

Ioannis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ioannis

I agree with 2) above. After all, if we cannot help each other here, the last resource is Melabs itself, and they do help very well.

Ioannis

---

yes agreed

i have asked MeLabs for help several times lately and always have gotten patient and useful responses, great company, great product

Been away from the forum for a while, but for me it's not that BASIC is dead, but the PBP is struggling. The loss of DT is a major blow, but as mentioned there were others who know BASIC programming inside out who have moved on and no longer post, but where it's lacking is in functionality. For me it's nearest competitor is MikroBasic, which features support for Ethernet, wi-fi, bluetooth etc and produces the hardware too. Whilst the Ardiuno bay well bloat the code, it's library base covers most of these functions too. IMO, if PBP doesn't keep up and provide library files to support common hardware for these sort of devices then it will become left behind, and eventually be uneconomical to continue, which would be a shame.

If PBP 2.6C is now static, the question I have is, how long will it be before the path(s) to the MPASM assembler located in MPLAB is lost due to Microchip upgrading the MPLAB or assembler? Also does this mean 2.6C will eventually be unable to run inside MPLAB. Maybe this is a non question because I do not understand the file interface between the two? Anyway I am dusting off the PK3 and looking at the C++ tutorial .....last time had trouble getting a LCD to do anything but garbage using C-18 and the in house LCD Lib. I hope all is not lost with the MeLabs group and they jump out of the box soon and say or do ? .....just a concerned hobbyist.

Well, since PBP3 has been out for several years (and has great additions compared to 2.6) I sure hope they don't spend time on 2.6C (except for possible bug fixes).

Anyway, even if Microchip does something to MPLAB which breaks the "connection" with the old PBP2.6 in the future all you need to do is to not run that new version of MPLAB, right? If you have PBP2.6C now and it works with MPLAB 8.92 (or whatever) why mess around updating the MPLAB/MPASM installation you use with PBP? OK, 10 years down the road when the latest and greatest OS from Microsoft no longer can run that old version MPLAB maby I can see the problem.....

With that said, anyone (and I don't mean anyone particular) complaining about the lack of development on PBP while still sitting on PBP 2.6 (or even earlier) basically has no right to complain IMHO.

And with THAT said I sure hope MeLabs is working, silently like they've always done, in the background. There's been some talk about a version for the 16-bitters (PIC24) which never materialised (at least not yet) but apart from that I don't think I've ever seen any "vapourware", as it was called in the other thread, or development plans, future features etc from MeLabs. It's my understanding that it's always been their strategy and they are sticking to it.

As I said before, let's help them out by helping each other out instead.

/Henrik.

I still use 2.6c with mplab versionwhatever without problem.

I'll update pbp when I can justify the cost, and then update mplab (I only use mpasm, I use mcs+).

Robert

Henrik, with all due respect whilst your comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular, I have to disagree with your comment regarding 2.60.

Like Richard I too am using 2.60c, with an older version of MPLAB. It works for me with the chips I like working with, and as I only code for fun and to make my own projects as a hobby can't always justify the cost of upgrading to the latest version.

Personally, whilst I prefer PBP style of structure I'm more inclined to learn MikroBasic Pro given that it's a one off cost, stacks of library files and free upgrades for the life of the product. Especially as this forum is missing some of the key members, and there are just a couple of people like yourself that are still around to help others with PBP coding issues when we are stumped.

Regarding your comment about 10 years from now, my guess is that it won't be compatibility issues between whatever flavour of OS microsoft is shipping and MPLAB, as Microchip are constantly updating their software to match the PICs they manufacture. It will be whether PBP is still around and has caught up to support the functionality of these PICs directly without the need for 3rd party library files from people like DT.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking PBP just for the sake of it. Just that in my opinion it's now being left behind its competitors

Quote:

---

Like Richard I too am using 2.60c

---

I think you mean Robert "demon"

I have pbp3 and 2.60c
looking towards the future and fearing the worst for pbp . in the last 12mths I have bought mikro c and sourceboost c . mainly because as scampy states mikronta has a lot of libraries and sourceboost was cheap and has some interesting libraries , however if you don't like the way they work ( which I'm finding is nearly always the case ) these libraries are pre compiled and you have no access to the underlying code . so I wind up reinventing the wheel constantly anyway. unlike the arduino libraries that are mostly "open" and have some documentation. you can alter them to your taste. alas my foray into c has not been a the boon I hoped for and I'm not keen on dumping 20 years of pic experience for a run at learning the in and outs of atmel hardware.
MikroBasic Pro is no great advantage as it has 3 versions 8/16/32 bit all separate products

for my 2 cents worth a future path needs to encompass both the 16 and 32 bit devices with the possibility to add open source libraries (just dreamin')

Malcolm,
Sitting on 2.6C is just fine and I have no problem with that if it does what you need. What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it "cool" to bitch about MeLabs not putting out any updates (and again, I'm not saying you are) while at the same time saying "I'm sitting on 2.6C because it does everthing I need". If it does everything you need then what do you need updates for?

And, regarding MPLAB...If PBP2.6C and MPLAB 8.92 does what you need why worry about what Microchip might do to MPLAB in the future? Leave it alone, don't mess with it and it'll continue to work like it currently does (until Microsoft messes it up). You won't get "access" to new chips thru a new version MPLAB/MPASM alone, MeLabs needs to add support files to PBP as well (though strictly speaking you COULD do those yourself) so again, if PBP2.6C and MPLAB 8.92 works for you that's fine.

And, just as Richard says, MikroElektronika may supply a host of library files but they are closed, reported to be buggy (and since they are closed you can't troubleshoot them), the support on their forum is not that great from what I've seen (I've go a couple of their hardware products so I visit there sometimes). I'm still thinking of getting MikroBASIC for PIC32 though.....

There certainly are things I've not been able to do with PBP but that's due to lack of know how on my part, not because PBP is limited. With that said, do I think PBP is perfect? Of course I don't I really hope they'll stay alive and keep improving it over the years to come.

And as far as this forum goes, if more people would stick around, participating in the discussions instead of just popping in requesting a solution to a problem or asking for someone else to write code for this or that then the forum wouldn't be as silent and a lot more people would learna a lot more. From reading and from helping others. I sure as hell learn A LOT by trying to figure out other people problems, with PBP that is ;-)

MeLabs have a forum of their own as well. It's pretty silent for sure but Charles is answering posts over there.

/Henrik.

I purchased a chipkit-pi (pic32 arduino clone) before christmass , free ide based on the arduino ide and said to arduino compatible-ish .worth a look I thought .
well its not really "compatible " and has very few libs for it . nice colour (might turn it into a micromite )http://geoffg.net/micromite.html

too much like hard work .its firmly into the too hard basket (with the stm32f4-discovery) for now

It seems the people complaining about BASIC or PBP are the ones with the least know how. Think back, have you ever heard Bruce, Darrel, or Melanie complain about the limitations? Yes, they would add a little ASM here and there, but that is one of the great things about PBP, the ability to be flexible.

If all you want to do is make one or two gadgets then use an Arduino kit, or something similar. However, if you are into this for the long term you will be wanting to learn PIC BASIC, XC8, or ASM.

Like some here I mainly use PBP 2.6. Mostly because I work in so many remote locations. I need to purchase another licence for PBP 3.0 ( I have one so far). And that is the other point, even if you are using PBP 2.6 and you want to see PBP stay around, pay for the upgrade to PBP 3.0 at least.

So it is simple.

Quit complaining, learn how to code, pay for the upgrade so MeLabs will continue to develop PBP, and contribute to the community, either one of the forums.

I think that you are correct, Dave, in that those who know least complain most. This does not seem unlikely to me; those who know how, do not see the limitation and, therefore, have no complaint. I am reminded of the occasional request for more developed string functions - invariably someone with expertise describes a way to accomplish the task... but this does not answer the complaint. The complaint, "I don't know how to..." is rarely adequately answered by, "I do [know how]." Similarly, I wonder how comforting it is for inexperienced users to hear, "The answer is on page 262 of the datasheet." I acknowledge the correctness of this answer, I only doubt the adequacy of it. I feel I'm being generous when I suggest that 1 in 10 will find the information and make use of it with enough success to deem the process fun or even repeatable.

Arduino has become very popular over these past few years. I believe that it has a lot to do with the fact that on Sparkfun or Adafruit someone comes looking for help making this module or that device work. A more experienced user says, "Oh just a minute..." and almost instantly a sketch (I believe that's what they're called) appears. Presto - everybody can now use the module without effort or delay. In a world where, thanks to smart phones customers no longer dial a 10 digit phone number, this is an acceptable answer - reference to a datasheet is not. I don't know that most of these people would argue that Aurduino is more powerful - and they sure won't say it's cheaper, but if it does what they want... isn't that better? I think that many of us fall into that same category. Is Darrel's interrupt package perfect? No, but for most of us it is much easier than writing our own... therefore better. So much so - for a novice like myself - that the first time I saw it, I stood up from my desk and applauded!

In short, I do not think that products that come with the disclaimer, "to effectively use this product you must spend months learning to read datasheets and arrange programming syntax" are destined to be as popular as those that offer learning curve the length of the drive-thru line at McDonald's.

duplicate post

well 128k limitation is real , not upward path past it ,