PBP Glcd

[mister_e]

Unfortunately or not, Basic language still have poor reputation, where C language is more considered as Industry standard... no coincidence why it's the one most University I know will teach. In fact C and ASM, whatever MCU brand you're going to learn. No either a coincidence why Microchip have developped their own C compiler and push only third party C compiler(but since few months they also have PBP in their online store.. i don't see PDS over there.. did you?). In the past, ONLY C compiler covered the whole PIC range.. still true... but sure enough MikroeE will raise a PIC32 compiler soon... 'till now.. only C.

Microcontroller are the heart of many, see most new electronic devices, get the job done, as fast as possible... and that's it. I agree many compiler have much more than PBP to offer as standard feature for even less of PBP price, such as: Float, Trigs, Strings, GLCD, etc etc. And that's great, that's what competition is all about. And yes it's much more attractive for new potential customer... "Hey, for the same price or less, I have GLCD feature... I don't know what the heck a GLCD is... but I have it Woohoo, i also have float-point maths... etc etc etc"

Yes Melabs should work on that... but is that a real must? I'm not Melabs, I'm not going to speak for them. One thing is sure, I'm satisfied with, and I use it most of time. 'Till now, I've never been disapointed about their compiler, it's rock solid and work as advertised. If something doesn't work as expected, they have a real great tech support, we have the forum, AND we have access to the library (as in many other compilers).

OK, I'm not a new-comer, so I built, and i still prefer to build my own routines for many different hardware... GLCD is one in the list. Sure I lost time, but I learn something... is this learning stage worth the time invested? I think yes, but it's me. Do i use the built-in features of the compiler... yes and no. For ALL compiler, most of the built-in command can be skipped and be replace by a few code line to generate a faster, a tighter and much efficient code. BUTTON, HPWM, PULSIN, COUNT are some in the list for PBP, equiv is also available in ALL compilers. This raise your point..

Of course, it is all about what you can do with the tool. It is an excellent tool. However, you will never get PBP code as compact or as fast running as any C compiler, and probably the other two basic compilers, and certainly no where near as compact as asm code. It is not designed for maximum efficiency or anything else... just maximum ease.

General fact, you have more line to type in C than in BASIC to do the same job... and that's one thing user are afraid. "Why should I write/read to the CCP register while HPWM is easier to use?" Same rules apply for ADCIN and so on. But i'm not going to tell that all C compilers provide tighter code that Basic compilers... there's a load of Bloat one. Same rules apply in asm.. you can create real bloated ASM code. Still bring this... "the power is behind the keyboard" thought

All compiler support everything... the software programmer (AKA end user) don't