Melanie down to the nitties. Out here in Rio Linda we are engineers and most are computer programmers for instance I teach C++ . The thrust Melanie is not in the compilers PB or PBP they are great, they always work ,however what we are saying is why not have the same code for both compilers. Obviously the more expensive compiler will have more flexibilty more commands et al. It's akin to GM making a product line with totally different accessories for each version. Does not make sense.About the PicBasic code , PB & PBP are totally different syntax some commands are the same however this again is contributing to a lot of confusion. Books that are on the market Melanie have half the book for PB and the other half for PBP, what utter nonsense.The only writer who has homed in on just PB and the 16F84 is John Iovine and an elementary book published in the UK by Eric Edwards and Neil Roberts. Suggest Melanie you show this reply to management. My thinking let's get it right first time. Consider revisions , you have to make corrections to both versions whereas if it were same code only one update version is required. The only PB manual I received was from MicroEngineering Labs, Inc perhaps there is another one out there , Melanie the intent of the memo is not to criticize the product but to try and make it better and saleable to the public.Finally consider the course I am teaching C++ if the founders had two or three code versions we would really be in a mess.