Future PBP

[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.

[enigma]

does anyone have any meaningful information on an update to PBP3. I have used PBP since it launched and I`m comfortable with it, but I`m hitting limitations with both it and the IDE which equally hasn't updated in 3 years and of course the new PICs now available are not supported.
Regards Pete

[Pimentel]

I really like the PBP and also hate the C syntax. Whenever needed, I was helped by everyone here at Forun.
Recently however, I played with the Arduino and I would love that PBP did something like libraries specific to the various devices available today as accelerometer, GPS, Bluetooth modules, pressure / temperature / humidity sensor, graphics and touch displays, and many others since do this in sometimes nail is complicated and requires further study the datasheet. The Help could also be updated with current examples of use of these devices. An improvement in the configuration of the fuses would be cool, because I think it would be easier if when choosing the pic model, already brought the template settings to the body of the program according to the version of the compiler used. I know there are many posts about it but agree, requires extra work. I was also sad about the loss of Darrel because their work helped a lot, but I believe that other colleagues will continue the improvements and in order to keep on top PBP implementations.
Regardless of anything, I got used well PBP, are only suggestions

[Art]

I just ported most of my reuseable BASIC code to C, and it is really very little drama.
I see little reason to go back to BASIC now I can only think of a few assembly bit banging reasons
just to make a point, but the grunt of the dsPic would probably still do it faster.

What started as a simple project became one dsPic that runs most useful code I’ve written
(PBP/asm code that I would use again), and a lot of C as well, with plenty of room left.

When you write in another language a while, it’s difficult to switch back, even one you’re familiar with.
It’s like that with C, if I write a BASIC program right now,
it will no doubt have braces and backslash comments until I try to compile it.