ME Labs getting Lazy?

[rwskinner]

Melanie,
I agree with you and like I said, for the most part I've just built what I needed. The datasheets can be pretty confusing and you can't expect everyone in the world to understand them, without some help and practice.

Back on the compiler. I guess my biggest fustration was that the Chipset Defines are all broken, and I have to comment out the defines in the Picbasic Inc File then go dig thru the P18Fxxxx.inc file and do all these work arounds.

WHY? I can see this being an issue with maybe an outdated compiler package because things changed but it this still all required for the newer versions or is it something we will always have to live with?

How do other vendors do it. Back to the company x and company z don't require you to do this....

[Melanie]

No, I have to agree with you in part, but I can see where MeLabs is comming from...

1. If you are an Amatuer/Hobbyist, the default (18F defines for example) that you 'unpack out-of-the-box' allow the majority of the uninitiated to get the product to work in some form or other.

2. Once you spill beyond basics into more custom designs, one hopes you have gained a sufficient knowledge now to be able to go beyond the basics and edit up your INCs and things. *sigh* I know, it's not perfect. Even as a Pro (no, I don't stand on street corners!), it trips me up sometimes. There's nothing more irritating to throw some code together, chose a new PIC that you haven't used before, and get a face full of compiler errors reminding you that you haven't edited that INC file.

Ideally, what MeLabs could do, is have a compler switch eg /i (for /ignore or /idiot) which would cause the compiler not to use the default settings in the INC file and take it all from your program instead. It's not that difficult to parse a command line and impliment, and I always thought I'd get around and do it... but it's lack of time and I'm not that involved in day-to-day programming to bother anymore.

[Pedro Pinto]

Hello

You can use Atmel controllers with programming language Bascom, that is very identical to PBP pro but more, more powerfull.

Regards
Pedro

[krohtech]

I feel that MELabs is doing a great job. I have called for support on the trial version and received it without hesitation. I also had my disk munched just after receiving it in the mail and they replaced it for a minor shipping charge. I think the new power of 2.50 is great and I think they are advancing the product at a reasonable rate. Upgrades are sold at a very reasonable price. Have you ever upgraded a MS product for around 10% the cost of the original software? I am a beginner and have received a ton of help from MELabs, the manual, searching this forum and when all else failed posting for help. I think people need to appreciate how good we have it. I would love it if version 2.60 had integrated DMXIN and DMXOUT routines but like Melanie said that would be way too specialized so I will either learn how to do it myself or pay someone to do it for me.

[skimask]

Hello
You can use Atmel controllers with programming language Bascom, that is very identical to PBP pro but more, more powerfull.
Regards
Pedro

I have to disagree a bit (I said a bit, I didn't entirely!). Atmel/8051 based MCU's have been around longer than PICs, they have a larger following, but as far as more powerful? The power is behind the keyboard...not in the chip.

I would love it if version 2.60 had integrated DMXIN and DMXOUT routines but like Melanie said that would be way too specialized so I will either learn how to do it myself or pay someone to do it for me.

As far as the 'extended' command set goes, if you have written yourself a nice set of PBP extensions (see the Forum topic of the same name), you can easily INCLUDE them for easy access just as a normal PBP command, well, almost as easily. For instance, the PRINTSTR functions that I use for the graphic LCDs, I include 'nokiaknockoff.bas' into my main program. The 'nokiaknockoff.bas' file has the PBP code along with assembly extensions and I access those commands with a simple:
@ printstr 5,6,"this is my function"
inline with my normal PBP code...simple as that.
If you are able to get decent DMXIN/DMXOUT subroutines running, you can easily do the same, whether it be thru a GOSUB or a MACRO.
Of course it's not quite a good as the real thing, but it's a great stepping stone to learning the inner-workings of PBP and compilers in general.

[Pedro Pinto]

SKIMASK says:
I have to disagree a bit (I said a bit, I didn't entirely!). Atmel/8051 based MCU's have been around longer than PICs, they have a larger following, but as far as more powerful? The power is behind the keyboard...not in the chip.

I have in my previews posting that Bascom are more powerfull and not the chip

Regards
Pedro

[skimask]

I have in my previews posting that Bascom are more powerfull and not the chip
Regards
Pedro

See and read Post #3...
The power of ANY compiler/assembler/anything is in the keyboard/lever/anything operator...not the chip/engine/whatever.
Bascom may have more functions built into it when it comes from the factory, but is it really 'more powerful'?
It just means that somebody took the time to code more functionality into it (i.e. operated the keyboard better).
Again...Post #3...

You can have 2 out of 3...Fast, Cheap, Good
Fast and Cheap, won't be Good...
Cheap and Good, won't be Fast...
Fast and Good, won't be Cheap...