Which PBP Compiler are you using?
I always thought there were heaps more PBP rather than PBC users which is why we rarely saw any PBC questions (let's forget that the PBC slot on this forum wasn't accepting posts until now!). So just to get an idea of who's using the forum, I thought I'd chuck together a poll... feel free to vote accordingly...
PS. You need to Log-In to vote.
Don't dismiss Proton so quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_e
In the market you have at this time 4 different known Basic Compiler
- 1. Melabs PICBASIC PBC and PRO
2. MBASIC
3. Crownhill PROTON
4. MikroBasic
Wich is the first one? Wich one is the most known ? Wich one will give you wider support ?
MELABS PICBASIC PRO.
MikroBasic and others are certainely good but, IMO still young on the market. If you choose MikroBasic then... we will not be able to give you any kind of support.
It is interesting to note that most of the people in the Proton forum are (or at least were) PICBasic Pro users. Another interesting thing to note is that the guy who writes the Proton compiler is the same guy who wrote "Experimenting With PICBasic Pro".
I have no beef with PBP at all. It's a great compiler. It's just that the PDS (Proton Development Suite) is everything that PBP is and more. They're constantly in a state of development. I read some of the posts in this forum, regarding how to do this or that, and then I find that Proton already has a command that takes care of it. In my humble opinion, if you can't afford both, you should go with Proton. Now, to be fair, I think the reason that PBP seems to have become a "dead language" (no sharp objects please) is because of the problem of software piracy. What's the point of putting in all of this effort if only a handful of people pay for it and everybody else steals it. Why bother? Crownhill has taken the step of requiring a USB dongle to compile your code. This is a bit of a pain and a bit stressfull (what if you lose the dongle?), but in the long run I think this actually will protect their profits. More profits means more incentive to continue developing the product, and I'm willing to put up with a bit of an inconvenience for the sake of innovation. I'm sure that somebody, if they took the time, could figure out how to defeat the dongle. But any engineer with this kind of talent probably wouldn't stoop to being a thief (at least I'd like to think so).
Anyway, PIC on everyone. I still come to this site for ideas now and then, but I have moved on to PDS and honestly doubt I'll be dragging out my PBP compiler any time soon.
Cheers.
I've been using PIcBasic Pro to develop a new product
A little over a year ago I embarked on a mission to design a new video/expansion/carrier board for the BASIC Stamp 2. I chose a PIC18F252 as the main processor to handle all the communications with the Stamp. Even though I had been utilizing PIC assembly code for many of my projects over the last 12 years, I decided to take an entirely new approach, and use a higher level compiler to hopefully ease my development cycle. Not feeling particularly comfortable with C (not that it isn't a good language, but not in my comfort zone) I decided to give PicBasic Pro a try. Coupling this with Microcode Studio's IDE gave me what I was looking for, and I haven't been at all disappointed (well... it would be nice if it was an optimizing compiler, and I really wish it had better string handling capabilities).
Although the current project is still in process, it is now nearing completion. Something I probably couldn't say if I had been trying to do it entirely in assembly. Not to say that there isn't some assembly code in my source, but it has only been necessary for the interrupt routines, which in my case needed to be very fast. The nice thing is that PicBasic makes adding these interrupt routines, and sharing variables, a relatively easy process. I also liked the fact that both low-level and high-level interrupt support was provided. And last but not least, I have had no lock-ups or ugly blue screens of death appear to ruin my day. The Microcode Studio/PicBasic Pro combination has been an extremely reliable programming tool.
Bottomline, if I had it to do all over again, I would change nothing.
3rd World war has started !!!
Hello goes to each one
Hey guys, fellows, dadies, mamies, boys, and girls. What is this, you better shut this crap down.
As Bruce said, these compilers are just tools, I thought I will never use PICs, simply because I hated assembly in the earlier university days, especially that one for 8085, although I was the first in my class when it came to such subjects, I don't know, may be other students were in to girls more than studying !!
Any way, on my last graduate year, PICs were my 1st option when it came to my graduation project, so, I learned assembly, wrote lots of good codes, so what, I had no time to work on my graduation project if I want to use assembly, simply because its a time burning language.
Thank god guys, our project was based on team work, so I told my friends that if we stick with assembly, then our project will finish on the next year, so I started surfing the net, here and there, I found lots of documetaion on PICBasic Pro, so, I saved, borrowed, and won money to buy PICBasic Pro.
Hey guys I think you missed some thing here, when some good guys come here and say that they were PICBasic Pro users and now they are PDS users. Now think aboout it that way:
When a begginer in PICs looks for some thinng easy, nice, and to which a lot of documetation is dedicated, he will see that PICBasic Pro, is the man, there are lots of books, webs, and good people on many forums using PICBasic Pro, and the most important, they are willing to help each other, as the case is, here.
After they get started with PICs, and they write all codes they had in mind for PICs, and all their dreams become true, here is what happens:
While someone of us is writing a code for his lovely PIC MCU, he may need some features that are not available in PICBasic Pro, so, he quickly starts surfing the net, looking for a complier "TOOL" that supports his requirements, of course, the first compiler to collide with, is simply PICBasic Plus "PDS".
There is nothing wrong with that. Hey people, If you remember the reason for buying PICBasic Pro, the you will certainly know the reason why some previous PICBasic Pro users went to PDS, SIMPLY, increasing productivity, and development time saving issues. As if life clip repeats it self here. We ran away from assembly to PICBasic Pro, then when PICBasic Pro could not manage to do some thing PDS could, we ran away to PDS !!
This is the essence of problem, if we find some tool that save us brain tackling nuisance, we directly go for it, and forget that we were supposed to use assembly at the first place !!
So guys, cut this crap, instead of talking about this one is better, and this one is much better, you better start writing your own code for your projects whether you are a PBP or PDS user, doesn't matter. Melanie has taught me an important lesson, which is to get the project done, no matter how, just get the project done, whether you have to use a single command in PDS, or a complete page in PBP to drive a GLCD, the result is, you got your GLCD working, with the same code size, but by taking different highways, and brain tackling nuisance being nice when you finish :)
I don't know when the ghost of PICBasic Pro and PDS war vanishes, any way, no need for that in essence. What is the point coming her saying this one is ugly, bad, and good....
Have a nice ICDing