Future PBP


Closed Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Future PBP

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    50


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Default Re: Future PBP

    does anyone have any meaningful information on an update to PBP3. I have used PBP since it launched and I`m comfortable with it, but I`m hitting limitations with both it and the IDE which equally hasn't updated in 3 years and of course the new PICs now available are not supported.
    Regards Pete

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Brasil, Sao Paulo, Campinas
    Posts
    54


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Default Re: Future PBP

    I really like the PBP and also hate the C syntax. Whenever needed, I was helped by everyone here at Forun.
    Recently however, I played with the Arduino and I would love that PBP did something like libraries specific to the various devices available today as accelerometer, GPS, Bluetooth modules, pressure / temperature / humidity sensor, graphics and touch displays, and many others since do this in sometimes nail is complicated and requires further study the datasheet. The Help could also be updated with current examples of use of these devices. An improvement in the configuration of the fuses would be cool, because I think it would be easier if when choosing the pic model, already brought the template settings to the body of the program according to the version of the compiler used. I know there are many posts about it but agree, requires extra work. I was also sad about the loss of Darrel because their work helped a lot, but I believe that other colleagues will continue the improvements and in order to keep on top PBP implementations.
    Regardless of anything, I got used well PBP, are only suggestions

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    985


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Default Re: Future PBP

    I just ported most of my reuseable BASIC code to C, and it is really very little drama.
    I see little reason to go back to BASIC now I can only think of a few assembly bit banging reasons
    just to make a point, but the grunt of the dsPic would probably still do it faster.

    What started as a simple project became one dsPic that runs most useful code I’ve written
    (PBP/asm code that I would use again), and a lot of C as well, with plenty of room left.

    When you write in another language a while, it’s difficult to switch back, even one you’re familiar with.
    It’s like that with C, if I write a BASIC program right now,
    it will no doubt have braces and backslash comments until I try to compile it.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: - 12th November 2014, 08:57
  2. The Future Of Hobby Electronics.
    By T.Jackson in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: - 2nd February 2009, 07:39
  3. PBP File Extension: .BAS vs .PBP
    By nedtron in forum mel PIC BASIC Pro
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: - 13th February 2006, 06:48

Members who have read this thread : 2

You do not have permission to view the list of names.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts