Heated Debate... Features and Updates and Things...

[Acetronics2]

Hi, Mel

I'm a pure Hobbyist ... who flies models.

You will surely agree reliability is the first thing I'm waiting from PBP ...

I can say, I never had bad surprises ( exept my own beginner's errors ...) with PBP.
It's really a great tool ... and I can enhance or modify it myself !!!

But I agree it needs a little (really little ! ) learning time, that's a good thing nowadays to learn, instead of stupidly paste already done work ...

No other compiler offers that ...

Alain

[bot402]

When you have a product that hasn't actually changed in 5 years its easy to make it stable, especially if it doesn't actually do a great deal in the first place, and even then what it does is bloated, outdated, and inefficient. But where would we be if everything was like that. We'd still be driving Model T fords, and forget Television, the Internet and all the other offerings that have had to briefly go through the "not so stable" stage.

I'm just glad that everyone doesn't have that blinkered approach to things, or progress would come to a grinding halt!!!!!

[Melanie]

Well, in over a thousand posts helping folks both here and when I was on the email forum, I've yet to write a single word of complaint about that bloated, inefficient, outdated product. Which I may add, contributes to consistantly give me a bigger pay-check than the Managing Director of the company I work for and allowed me to pay-off a $500k mortgage in under 3 years. If people don't like the product so much, why are they here on this forum - shouldn't they be on a competitors site? Good example of yours though... ol' Henry earned damn good money out of that Model-T (though I wouldn't give you anything for his current offerings!).

"offerings that have had to briefly go through the "not so stable" stage"

When your designs feed factory production lines making close to half a million units annually, products giving "not so stable" results are just not an option. When those goods ship out the door, it's a one-way journey and we NEVER want them to come back. To even consider "not so stable" has got to be the crazyest thing I've read yet! How many things would you tollerate around your home or workplace that were "not-so-stable" (apart from your chosen compiler)? Your car?, perhaps the plane you next fly in? The air conditioner? Your shower water temperature? The building elevator perhaps? When you complained, what if you got an answer "Well, we used an unstable software tool to build your product, so that's just tough, you'll have to suffer it". Sure you would! You'd be the first in the queue asking for a refund.

[OXIMBIT]

Some observations:-

I have never advocated bells and whistles, it was after seeing people post how to work with > 16 vars and some form of basic data handling. When I used Pbpro many years ago, this was what I wanted and like your doing now I had workarounds. But I got fed up with doing it. Bigger variables eat code space but inevitably some times I have to use them. Luckily I don't have to do it my self now. Better data handling is a must, Most people here will stick a Eeprom on so they can have better lookup tables, unless I have massive tables I fit them all in the pic, it's easy.

As the last post said if every software company froze there development when it was 100% stable we would not even have got to Ada or one of the really early OS's. Product development is a part of life, unfortunately moving forward entails problems. Look at the Melabs site you will see that after years of standing still with a basic compiler there still coming across problems.

Problems always get fixed and you can do what a lot of people do and stick with the version that works for you then until you consider the new version has been around long enough to make you happy or there is a feature you have to have.

What is basically being said is Melabs is not capable after all these years of adding a few basic features with out bringing the lot crashing down around your ankles. They could have added 32 vars and tested it for 2 years but have decided to milk this product for all it's worth.

This is all my own personal opinion and as I always say if you happy with what you've got then stick with it. If not kick up a fuss or go elsewhere. Sitting around trying to make workarounds seems not to make sense, throw a few arrows, kick up a stink it will in the end make a better compiler.

What I don't think works is when there is constructive criticism (however sarcastic) its nice to slam them down. Take it on the chin like a man (or a woman) and be constructive in return.

[Dwayne]

Hello Alain,

Alain:

I'm a pure Hobbyist ... who flies models.

You will surely agree reliability is the first thing I'm waiting from PBP ...

I can say, I never had bad surprises ( exept my own beginner's errors ...) with PBP.
It's really a great tool ... and I can enhance or modify it myself !!!

But I agree it needs a little (really little ! ) learning time, that's a good thing nowadays to learn, instead of stupidly paste already done work ...

No other compiler offers that ...

I used to fly models for 20 some years. Was on a show team that opened up the airshows here in Wichita. Flew competition in Pattern flying. I am also a GA pilot and a UL Pilot. My favorite engine was a Rossi 40 or a YS 45. 2HP for a .40 engine... and wow did they scream! Used a Rossi 60 for ducted fan model. But 12 ounces of fuel would go in 5 min with the .40!


I have found PBP 100 percent reliable. Tough, small code, and easy to use. Every once In a while, I will get stumped. But it is usually my fault. Just like all compilers, you have to use them to know them. And when I get stumped, it is usually because I have not used that feature yet, or tried to shortcut by not looking in the manual...<g>

Dwayne

[bot402]

Small Code!!!!!!

You've obviously never used another language.

[OXIMBIT]

Sorry about this look away if your sensitive
As I know a lot about the way Pbpro works and it's weakness I decided to write a little test code to show the differences between my compiler and Pbpro

Below is a little bit of code and here are the statistics

Pbpro
16f877 1068 words vars 25
18f452 1798 bytes Vars 27

Another basic compiler
same code
16f877 653 words Vars 11
18f452 920 bytes Vars 8

Using the better data handling by changing "this is a long message" to CStr my_message and adding
my_message: CData "this is a long message"

16f877 399 words Vars 11
18f452 694 bytes Vars 9

Now turn the optimizer to level 6

No cdata
16f877 593 words Vars 11
18f452 848 bytes Vars 8

With Cdata
16f877 339 words Vars 11
18f452 622 bytes Vars 9

So just to recap best against best

Pbpro
16f877 1068 words vars 25
18f452 1798 bytes Vars 27

The other compiler
16f877 339 words Vars 11
18f452 622 bytes Vars 9

Like I said if your happy with your compiler stick with it.

 
    bit1 var Bit
    Bit2 var Bit
    bit3 var Bit
        
    If bit1 = Bit2 Then 
        bit3 = 1    
        GoTo lable1
    EndIf
    lcdout "this is a long message"

lable1:    
    If bit1 = Bit2 Then 
        bit3 = 1    
        GoTo lable2
    EndIf
    lcdout "this is a long message"
lable2: 
    If bit1 = Bit2 Then
        bit3 = 1    
        GoTo lable3
    EndIf  
    lcdout "this is a long message"
lable3:     
    If bit1 = Bit2 Then
        bit3 = 1    
        GoTo lable4
    EndIf  
    lcdout "this is a long message"
lable4: 
    If bit1 = Bit2 Then
        bit3 = 1    
        GoTo lable5
    EndIf    
    lcdout "this is a long message"
lable5:     
    If bit1 = Bit2 Then
        bit3 = 1    
        GoTo lable6
    EndIf   
    lcdout "this is a long message"
lable6: 
    If bit1 = Bit2 Then
        bit3 = 1    
        GoTo lable7
    EndIf    
    lcdout "this is a long message"
lable7:     
    If bit1 = Bit2 Then
        bit3 = 1    
        GoTo lable8
    EndIf  
    lcdout "this is a long message"
lable8: 
    If bit1 = Bit2 Then
        bit3 = 1    
        GoTo lable9
    EndIf    
    lcdout "this is a long message"
lable9:     
    If bit1 = Bit2 Then
        bit3 = 1    
        GoTo lable10
    EndIf  
    lcdout "this is a long message"
lable10: 
    If bit1 = Bit2 Then
        bit3 = 1    
        GoTo lable11
    EndIf    
    lcdout "this is a long message"
lable11:     
    If bit1 = Bit2 Then
        bit3 = 1    
        GoTo lable12
    EndIf   
    lcdout "this is a long message"
lable12:

[Dwayne]

Hello Bot,

Bot

Small Code!!!!!!

You've obviously never used another language.

<chuckle> You know what assume means don't you???

I programmed Philip Micrchips for many years. Assembly. Pure. Using UV light for 20 min on a 80C series MCU so that you hopefully erased the thing... else you couldn't reprogram it...had to re-erase it for another 20 mins.

I have tried other compilers...One thing you may have forgotten... Each compiler has its own way of optimizing code. One compiler may optimize a certain bit of code better than another... and vise versa...

But! you are correct...If the compiler suits you... use it!... and PBP is extremely reliable and bullet proof... I want 100 percent reliablity and small code. Not 99 percent reliability and a phone call from someone saying its not working correctly.

Dwayne

[mytekcontrols]

Wow! This place sure changed over night.

I think everyone makes great points from their own particular perspective. And bottomline as already stated, feel free to use what ever compiler or tools that suit you best. I also realize that it is a fundamental aspect of human nature to: resist change, hate starting over, or leave something behind. But sometimes you gotta do it, especially when the change will greatly ease your burden. However, constantly changing the tools you work with in order to have the latest, greatest thing out there, may be good for retailers, but a lot of times only results in lost productivity for the individual or company.

I remember this machinist guy I worked with several years ago who had the most awesome, gigantic, cadillac of tool boxes stuffed with every tool imaginable. No matter how many tools he had, he would always be the first guy standing outside when the Snap-on truck arrived, drooling over what other new tool he could buy. There was also this other machinist who worked at the same place, who had a tool chest with only a handfull of drawers, filled with a carefully selected assortment of what were obviously well used tools. I think you know where I am going with this story. Anyway, between these two different machinists, the one with the small assortment of tools, was also the one that could not only out produce the other individual, but also produced the highest quality products. Not to say this is always the case, and not that the opposite scenario most likely exists. But sometimes people really do get caught up in their tools, instead of what they're trying to build. I think Melanie has made a similar point, not only here, but in other forums as well.

Final point: We probably all still use hammers and manual screwdrivers, even though there are more advanced powered versions to be had (of which we might own as well, and use as well).

On a lighter note, I invite you all to see something very cool that is evolving over in this forum Embedded Strings in Your Code Space
This is really what this forum should be about. Making the best of what you have, and working together to make it even better.