Which PBP Compiler are you using?

[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!

[crematory]

Hello goes to each one

Hey guys, fellows, dadies, mamies, boys, and girls. What is this, you better shut this crap down.

As Bruce said, these compilers are just tools, I thought I will never use PICs, simply because I hated assembly in the earlier university days, especially that one for 8085, although I was the first in my class when it came to such subjects, I don't know, may be other students were in to girls more than studying !!

Any way, on my last graduate year, PICs were my 1st option when it came to my graduation project, so, I learned assembly, wrote lots of good codes, so what, I had no time to work on my graduation project if I want to use assembly, simply because its a time burning language.

Thank god guys, our project was based on team work, so I told my friends that if we stick with assembly, then our project will finish on the next year, so I started surfing the net, here and there, I found lots of documetaion on PICBasic Pro, so, I saved, borrowed, and won money to buy PICBasic Pro.

Hey guys I think you missed some thing here, when some good guys come here and say that they were PICBasic Pro users and now they are PDS users. Now think aboout it that way:

When a begginer in PICs looks for some thinng easy, nice, and to which a lot of documetation is dedicated, he will see that PICBasic Pro, is the man, there are lots of books, webs, and good people on many forums using PICBasic Pro, and the most important, they are willing to help each other, as the case is, here.

After they get started with PICs, and they write all codes they had in mind for PICs, and all their dreams become true, here is what happens:

While someone of us is writing a code for his lovely PIC MCU, he may need some features that are not available in PICBasic Pro, so, he quickly starts surfing the net, looking for a complier "TOOL" that supports his requirements, of course, the first compiler to collide with, is simply PICBasic Plus "PDS".

There is nothing wrong with that. Hey people, If you remember the reason for buying PICBasic Pro, the you will certainly know the reason why some previous PICBasic Pro users went to PDS, SIMPLY, increasing productivity, and development time saving issues. As if life clip repeats it self here. We ran away from assembly to PICBasic Pro, then when PICBasic Pro could not manage to do some thing PDS could, we ran away to PDS !!

This is the essence of problem, if we find some tool that save us brain tackling nuisance, we directly go for it, and forget that we were supposed to use assembly at the first place !!

So guys, cut this crap, instead of talking about this one is better, and this one is much better, you better start writing your own code for your projects whether you are a PBP or PDS user, doesn't matter. Melanie has taught me an important lesson, which is to get the project done, no matter how, just get the project done, whether you have to use a single command in PDS, or a complete page in PBP to drive a GLCD, the result is, you got your GLCD working, with the same code size, but by taking different highways, and brain tackling nuisance being nice when you finish

I don't know when the ghost of PICBasic Pro and PDS war vanishes, any way, no need for that in essence. What is the point coming her saying this one is ugly, bad, and good....

Have a nice ICDing

[Acetronics2]

Hi Crematory ...

a very long time ago, I read somewhere :

"The very best tool is the one you know the best"

... The only question is : are you ready to really learn it ???

Alain

[crematory]

Hello Acetronics

I have already done that, I really learned it .....