Future PBP

[skimask]

Nope, not the "8-bit limitations" at all. Sure, I'd like to use PBP with the new 80 & 100 pin TQFP's. But that's not the point. There's also plenty of <28 pin PICs with newer features.

3 years. No updates. Really?

[rmteo]

Nope, not the "8-bit limitations" at all. Sure, I'd like to use PBP with the new 80 & 100 pin TQFP's. But that's not the point. There's also plenty of <28 pin PICs with newer features.

3 years. No updates. Really?

As you said "when an STM32F415 costs the same as a PIC18Fxxxx" why even bother.

[Archangel]

You know, I have an old Phillips screwdriver that I really like. I have some newer and more expensive ones, but I go to this one first. I just like it, wouldn't trade it for a new one like it. Seems PBP is like that too. My projects do not depend on the newest fancy featured PICs so PBP is here to stay for me. NOW WHEN they upgrade it to program 16 & 32 bit PICS, I will buy the upgrade. "C" is really only as good as your libraries and I HATE the syntax, I E Punctuation hassels, but then I don't write code in notepad either

[skimask]

As you said "when an STM32F415 costs the same as a PIC18Fxxxx" why even bother.

Somedays I couldn't agree more, but at the moment, abstraction and familiarity. I'm sure in a few years, that'll likely change completely. Familiar with PICs, know them inside and out, and I'm satisfied with the level of abstraction that PBP provides (basically the lack of the real need to know the guts), and yet can dig deep into the PICs guts when needed. Also at the moment, not very familiar with ARM, specifically the STM32F4 series, and with that, the IDEs available for the ARMs (Arduino styles/knockoffs not included) don't provide the abstraction wanted to easily kick something up quickly. Not to mention, there aren't a lot of ARMs in DIP packages. Yes, they're out there, just not a lot.

Main point being...3 years and no updates? WTF?

Double-dog dare anybody to find any one useful thread regarding 'updates' or a 'next version' with any meaningful information other than vapor ware.

As for me, I'm modifying PBP to include a couple of newer choice smaller PICs as well as couple of the larger ones.

[rmteo]

As long as you are doing simple hobby stuff (and DIP packages are pretty much irrelevant outside of the hobby and experimental arenas), sure, stay with PBP and PICs. If you must have a high level of abstraction in order to deal with sophisticated hardware, there are things such as STM32CubeMX.

[Ioannis]

there are things such as STM32CubeMX.

that goes with C and as Dave said earlier, some really hate that syntax. At least frustrating for me. PBP fits perfectly to my taste, the speed I test my prototypes is remarkable comparing to C and the IDE I use (Microcode Studio) is really great in its simplicity.

Many people, many preferences, but cannot deny that there are limitations that some day are too much. For example, I made an remote receiver using keeloq decoder in firmware and in PBP is on the limit. With C the same hardware performes much better using same resources (timers, interrupts etc).

Charles, are you listening? People are waiting (long enough) for the good news.

Ioannis

[skimask]

2 big projects in the past 2 years. Fair money makers too. Prototyped them in PBP using 'available' PICs, and by available I mean supported by PBP, PIC18F87J50.
Worked fine, but ran short of I/O by about 40 pins. '595's and '165's worked for the prototype, but made for a messy PCB in the final project.
Ended up switching to the 18F97J94 and using the .asm file as a template for generating the 18F97J94 code.
Ending up eating the extra hours in dev time re-coding.

[Scampy]

I develop code for my hobby projects, so mostly thing are simple and within the capabilities of PBP out of the box. I like the structure and syntax which I find is close to the BASIC I used on computers back in the '80s so often it's easy to debug or follow someone else's code. However, I do find that it hasn't kept pace with its competitors or hardware development. The Arduino and Raspberry Pi have a strong following, with support for modern colour LCD displays, wi-fi, and a host of other peripherals, both hardware and in library files... PBP appears to be lacking commands for these items, and has relied on the likes of Darrel, Mr E, Henrik etc to come up with routines to fill gaps and make PBB work simpler or better. I'm guessing that the developing team behind PBP is small, and the resources to hand are limited which is why the likes of MikroElectronika are leagues ahead.

The other issue I have, is that once purchased, Mikroebasic, C, Pascal etc are all a one time purchase with free updates, be that major or minor. When PB3 was launched, whilst there was an upgrade path, it still cost money. I'm sure the same will happen when / if another major release of PB comes out.