Which PBP Compiler are you using?

[Melanie]

There are two kinds of people... those who can and those who can't.

Those who can, do. That leaves the other group...

Those who can't have three options. Learn how, migrate to something easier, or give up.

If only people just bothered to "Learn How".

Why bother to have math lessons in school when you can just go out and buy a pocket calculator - it's easier?

Why bother to learn how to spell, when every computer has a spellchecker - it's easier?

If you can't drive a car, then you can use a Bus instead. But once you've learnt how to drive that car, you'll never want to take a Bus again - and if you never learn, then you'll never know what you're missing.

Finally...

...They're constantly in a state of development...

That is the most dangerous statement I've ever seen written.

[picnaut]

Hi Melanie,

In regards to your comment regarding development:

That is the most dangerous statement I've ever seen written.

If by "development" you mean "constantly releasing features before they are sufficiently tested" then I whole-heartedly agree with you.

I don't believe that this is the case with Proton.

Listen, all I was really getting at is that if you are deciding to buy one or the other, and you can't afford both, buy Proton. If one already has PBP and can't afford both, that's totally fine. All the work arounds are there on this forum and on the mailing list. Anyone with PBP should be able to do anything that someone with Proton can do, without a doubt.

I just think that Proton is a better product than PBP. That may not have been the case a few years ago, or even a year ago, but since the release of PDS, I believe that it has surpassed PBP.

Also, I agree with you that people should get off their butts and figure out how things work. I programmed in assembly before I moved to PBP. I still do for some code. I think that everybody should actually start that way first. It gives you a better understanding of PICs and a better appreciation for what the compiler is doing for you. It bothers me when people ask silly questions that could be answered in about 5 minutes of reading the datasheet. So, if people are whining because they're too lazy to learn, then not only should they stick with PBP, they should be forced by law (nudge nudge, wink wink) to abandon all high-level compilers for 6 months from the date of this post and program exclusively in assembly.

Now, the other side of the coin. I know if I programmed in assembly that I could achieve pretty much anything I could with PBP or Proton. It would be tedious. It would be time consuming. But I know I could do it. Then, 3 months after I finished it I would go back into my code to change something and...what the hell? I'd have to worm my brain back into what the code is doing (even well commented assembly). Why torture myself with this? PBP can take this headache from me so that I can be more productive. Proton can remove even more of the headache. This is my point. You are a very capable programmer Melanie. You could have done everything in assembly but you chose PBP to make yourself more productive. I chose PBP for the same reason and now I've chosen Proton. It's not the same quantum leap that PBP is to assembly, but, for the price, it's worth it.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

Cheers.

[Bruce]

Compilers are just tools. I use several. CCS C, Hi-Tech C, PBP, Proton+, and a good mix of assembly where needed.

There are indeed many differences between them all, and one will *always* provide some nifty feature/s that the other doesn't. Unfortunately, there are no Swiss Army Knife compilers out there that will handle every single application. If there is one, then please send me the URL to the manufacturers website...;o]

I also have more than one screwdriver in my toolbox. My favorite is the Makita cordless. It's an excellent tool, but it really makes a mess trying to tighten the screws in my glasses.

I haven't tossed my Craftsman screwdrivers because the Makita cordless is my favorite or has features they don't. And it's a good bet that I'll not visit the Craftsman web forum stating Craftsman is a dead tool because Makita does everything & more my Craftsman screwdriver doesn't - or I honestly doubt I'll be dragging out my Craftsman screwdrivers any time soon.

That's because I would consider it bad taste to do so - and know I'll be dragging out my other screwdrivers depending on which one is best suited for the task.

And yes, I realize that not everyone can afford to buy more than a single tool, but that's why manufacturers place demo versions on websites for download & evaluation. What works best for one person may not always be the best for another. Applications of the tool will vary like the wind - so download whatever demos you can find, and evaluate the tool based on your own specific needs, abilities, budget, language, IDE, etc, etc,.

If the day ever comes where a single tool will do everything my "collection of tools will do", then I'll definitely use it exclusively.

[picnaut]

Hi Bruce,

I agree with you about tools.
I've actually been quite interested in possibly buying the Hitech C-compiler.
Mainly because it supports dsPICs and PBP/Proton do not (and probably never will). So, on that point, I whole heartedly agree with you.

However, my argument is not about apples and oranges, it's just about apples.
About the only thing that you can do with PICBasic Pro that you can't do with Proton is create bit arrays. However, there are many things that you can do with Proton's command set that you cannot do with PICBasic Pro. Proton is simply a better apple. That's all I'm saying.

Cheers.

[Bruce]

buying the Hitech C-compiler

I want the new PICC Enterprise Edition. Just have to wait until I pick the right lotto ticket....;o]

[Acetronics2]

Hi Bruce,
About the only thing that you can do with PICBasic Pro that you can't do with Proton is create bit arrays. However, there are many things that you can do with Proton's command set that you cannot do with PICBasic Pro. Proton is simply a better apple. That's all I'm saying.

Cheers.

Hi, Picnaut

I do not know anything impossible to do with PBP ... as it offers open libraries, you can add the function you want, working as you want ...

But with a little effort ... I agree.

Alain

[mytekcontrols]

A little over a year ago I embarked on a mission to design a new video/expansion/carrier board for the BASIC Stamp 2. I chose a PIC18F252 as the main processor to handle all the communications with the Stamp. Even though I had been utilizing PIC assembly code for many of my projects over the last 12 years, I decided to take an entirely new approach, and use a higher level compiler to hopefully ease my development cycle. Not feeling particularly comfortable with C (not that it isn't a good language, but not in my comfort zone) I decided to give PicBasic Pro a try. Coupling this with Microcode Studio's IDE gave me what I was looking for, and I haven't been at all disappointed (well... it would be nice if it was an optimizing compiler, and I really wish it had better string handling capabilities).

Although the current project is still in process, it is now nearing completion. Something I probably couldn't say if I had been trying to do it entirely in assembly. Not to say that there isn't some assembly code in my source, but it has only been necessary for the interrupt routines, which in my case needed to be very fast. The nice thing is that PicBasic makes adding these interrupt routines, and sharing variables, a relatively easy process. I also liked the fact that both low-level and high-level interrupt support was provided. And last but not least, I have had no lock-ups or ugly blue screens of death appear to ruin my day. The Microcode Studio/PicBasic Pro combination has been an extremely reliable programming tool.

Bottomline, if I had it to do all over again, I would change nothing.

[picnaut]

Coupling this with Microcode Studio's IDE gave me what I was looking for, and I haven't been at all disappointed (well... it would be nice if it was an optimizing compiler, and I really wish it had better string handling capabilities).

Have you taken a look at PDS (the Proton Development Suite)?
It's put out by Crownhill (the same guys that run this forum).

It IS an optimizing compiler, handles strings well (at least on the 18F series) and it's IDE is made my Mecanique (the guys who gave you Microcode Studio).

A lot of the people using PDS are former PBP users. PBP was great for getting me into embedded programming again (used assembly before) but I've outgrown it (no sharp objects everybody).

Try their PDS Lite and check it out.

I haven't looked back (except that now I need to program in C for using dsPICs - yikes!).

Cheers!