trying to decide on pbp

[rsocor01]

CNCGuy,

Also, you can watch the next video to get you started. The video also has some nice tips and tricks. Ignore the LABX-1 Experimenter Board part if you are not planning on using it.

http://video.melabs.com/getting_started/index.html

Robert

[tenaja]

cnc--
Before you decide on PBP, I would suggest you also try the Proton compiler demo, and get a feel for which you prefer. The bottom line is that both are great compilers, and you won't go wrong with either. They are both based on the BS2 language, although Crownhill hasn't tried as hard to adhere to it as they've expanded Proton. I have purchased and used both compilers, and now almost exclusively use Proton. I would say that PBP is a tiny bit better for newbies, for two reasons. The parser is a little more forgiving with extra parentheses, and it's also able to parse out longer calculations. (Also, it's a little closer to BS2 compatibility--and a lot of newbies try to paste code.)

I use Proton, however, because I prefer it. If you know and are comfortable with asm, then you may also. Proton allows you to use bytes, words (2 bytes) and dwords (4 bytes signed) and floats all in one file without selecting a separate compiler. It also has a few more commands, in addition to built in support for interrupts. And quite a few of the "undocumented" features of the compiler are available on the forum, allowing you to go wild. More importantly (for some projects), however, the code is always more compact with Proton, because it has an optimizer that takes a few additional passes, depending on your settings. Sure, PBP has a great user-base supplied interrupt routine, but the code is still always larger than with Proton, even with Proton's optimizer off. And the bigger the program (i.e. crossing page boundaries) the bigger the difference in code size.

Oh, yeah... Proton also puts out a readable ASM file, rather than a file filled with macros. That's probably the main reason the optimizer is superior on Proton--because it has one, and PBP leaves all macro code as-is, with no optimization. But that's also why PBP compiles in less time, since it doesn't make optimizing passes.

FWIW, Crownhill, the company who brought us Proton, also brought you this forum.
http://www.protonbasic.co.uk/forum.php

[mackrackit]

Does Proton still do the dongle thing in order to run the software?

[cncmachineguy]

Well I will keep proton in the back of my mind as i already ordered PBP.

I do have a new question, Are you saying I won't be able to use bytes and words in the same program? Of course, I am used to only being able to work with bytes. Words are just a concept to me that require lots of xtra code.

[mackrackit]

With PBP you have
BIT
BYTE
WORD
LONG ( with the 18Fxxx chips)
for variable sizes and they can all be used in the same program.

You may find this interesting
http://melabs.com/resources/articles/longs.pdf

[cncmachineguy]

Thanks Dave, good read, now it makes more sense.

[tenaja]

Does Proton still do the dongle thing in order to run the software?

Yes, Proton still has a dongle...
But free upgrades.

LONG ( with the 18Fxxx chips)

LONGs (Dwords in Proton) are not available for 16F's or smaller chips. For a hobbyist, this is not an issue. On the other hand, if designing for a product where price is an issue, it can be a deal breaker.

[Acetronics2]

LONGs (Dwords in Proton) are not available for 16F's or smaller chips. For a hobbyist, this is not an issue. On the other hand, if designing for a product where price is an issue, it can be a deal breaker.

Hi, Tenaja

OR you didn'y use PBP for long time ...

OR you should be Honest ...

With Darrel last goodie, you can calculate with as many bits as you want ... and 32 bits calculations are easy to reach with pure PBP ...
just making your calculations somewhat clever ...

add to that floats are easy to use too ...

OR ... you are on the wrong forum ...

Alain

[tenaja]

Alain,
I have both compilers, it's just that I primarily use Proton, as a personal preference. The information on both forums is helpful. Remember, at the very beginning, I said both are good products and you won't go wrong. BUT--that's ONLY because of contributors like DT. Without his contributions, I could not have made that statement. And that alone makes Proton a better compiler, because he may change jobs or focus some day, but both compilers will still remain. The fact is that Proton has a far better track record for actual improvements, while PBP has remained rather static. What, two new (significant) features added over the last five years? And one of those--Long's--was on Proton from the beginning!

I don't get it why people take personal offense when someone says product "a" is better than product "b". It's a lot like the lame pc software reviews of the 90's where the magazines would let readers vote, and make their conclusion based on the vote. Have you EVER seen someone vote saying "I made the wrong choice"?

Well, I did, and I'm man enough to admit it. That's why I have both. Do YOU have both? I once tried to give my PBP license away to a developer who's used Proton, and he wouldn't take it!

Sure, you can use DT's plug-ins. But if you are shopping for a new package, why bother? You can have the features built-in, with instructions on how to use them in the manual with Proton. All in one compiler without changing settings or including a hack. And at a lower price. And tighter asm output.

And, yes, Proton has its hacks available, too. But typically the popular hacks get implemented into new releases. Tim Box was the original developer of the Instant Interrupt concept for PBP. He also implemented it for Proton. So this is the perfect example, because now it's an integrated feature of Proton.


CNC guy--don't take me wrong, you have a good compiler, with good support. But I own both, and think Proton is better.

[cncmachineguy]

Alain, I didn't take you wrong, I read the first part saying they are both great products. I actually like hearing folks debate on the merits of products. As long as there is no stone throwing, and its all factual, it is just helpful in the end.

For my purposes, I'm sure I will not use a long till a long time from now. Truth be told, programing 8085's with direct hex 20 some years ago, I have become used to working around most things over a byte. (ASM was like a high level language to me at the time) Now I'm sure that has everything to do with how I need to use uP's. Long variables to me mean big math or long delays, neither of which I have needed thus far. So the only thing I may be concerned about is code size (=speed), but I doubt that will be an issue. I have always just used 4Mhz in the past, now I'm gonna be running 32Mhz. So I will prolly wish it would slow down.

Its been some 10 years I think since I messed with BS1, So I don't even remember how to start a program. But I will sort it out, or ask questions.

I am hoping for a tutorial in the book or the help menu.

My biggest goal is to have an easier time housekeeping 52 I/O lines. That is really what pushed me over the edge.

[cncmachineguy]

CNCGuy,

Also, you can watch the next video to get you started. The video also has some nice tips and tricks. Ignore the LABX-1 Experimenter Board part if you are not planning on using it.

http://video.melabs.com/getting_started/index.html

Robert

Somehow I missed this post, and its in my thread!