Is BASIC dead ?

[dsicon]

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

[Scampy]

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.

[fowardbias]

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.

[HenrikOlsson]

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.

[Demon]

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

[Scampy]

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

[richard]

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')