I've been looking at both commercial and OSS PIC BASIC compilers. I
need 18F support - ideally something that has rudimentry USB support
out-of-the-box.
> I've been looking at both commercial and OSS PIC BASIC compilers. I
> need 18F support - ideally something that has rudimentry USB support
> out-of-the-box.
>
> Any opinions or faves from PIClisters?
>
> TIA,
>
> -marc
>
>
> Swordfish. Great compiler, very efficient code. Quite reasonable price.
>
> http://www.sfcompiler.co.uk/swordfish/
>
> I've used it for two products and have others in development and know of
> other products done with Swordfish as well.
>
> Jack
>
>
> Marc Nicholas wrote:
> > I've been looking at both commercial and OSS PIC BASIC compilers. I
> > need 18F support - ideally something that has rudimentry USB support
> > out-of-the-box.
> >
> > Any opinions or faves from PIClisters?
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > -marc
> >
> >
> Swordfish. Great compiler, very efficient code. Quite reasonable
> price.
>
> http://www.sfcompiler.co.uk/swordfish/
>
> I've used it for two products and have others in development and know
> of other products done with Swordfish as well.
>
> Jack
>
>
> Marc Nicholas wrote:
> > I've been looking at both commercial and OSS PIC BASIC compilers. I
> > need 18F support - ideally something that has rudimentry USB support
> > out-of-the-box.
> >
> > Any opinions or faves from PIClisters?
> >
> > TIA,
> >
> > -marc
> >
> >
The free version compiles programs under 2K so you can get a
good feel for it's capabilities. I'm using their C compiler and
am very satisfied. You might also want to look at the EasyPIC5
dev board. Their US distributor is Circuit-Ed.
(http://www.circuit-ed.com/)
Cheers,
Andrew
________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag
I've been looking at both commercial and OSS PIC BASIC
compilers. I
need 18F support - ideally something that has rudimentry USB
support
out-of-the-box.
I had a very bad experience with MikroPascal, to the point where it was
utterly unusable.
That was two years ago, and perhaps the Mikro family has been
fixed--common back end, I believe, with different front ends for the
compilers so some bugs will be with all members of their language family.
As they say, you only get one chance to make a first impression and
Mikro certainly made quite an impression with me. Terrible. Unusable.
Unresponsive to bug reports. I also purchased their USB programmer which
worked somewhat better than MikroPascal did, but it also had many
problems, such as grabbing 100% of USB resources and causing repeated
system crashes under both W2K and XP. I replaced it with
MicroEngineering Lab's USB programmer which works much better -- in
fact, perfectly, co-exists with other USB programs and hardware, does
not consume excessive resources, etc.
So, Mikro is 0 wins for 2 purchases with me. I'll never purchase
anything from them again.
I also use Mikroelektronika Basic compiler. The only downside is that the asm code is pretty large. If memory isn't an issue then it works well and support is excellent. Their code library was the largest by far when I was shopping for a basic compiler and that was the deciding factor for me. I also have several of their development boards.
good luck,
FJ> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:03:50 -0500> To: piclistspam_OUTmit.edu> From: @spam@akieranKILLspamureach.com> Subject: Re: [PIC]: Best PIC BASIC compiler?> > > Check out this one:> > http://www.mikroe.com/en/compilers/mikrobasic/pic/index.htm> > The free version compiles programs under 2K so you can get a> good feel for it's capabilities. I'm using their C compiler and> am very satisfied. You might also want to look at the EasyPIC5> dev board. Their US distributor is Circuit-Ed.> (http://www.circuit-ed.com/)> > Cheers,> Andrew> > > > ________________________________________________> Get your own "800" number> Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more> http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag> > > ---- On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Marc Nicholas (KILLspamgeekythingKILLspamgmail.com)> wrote:> > I've been looking at both commercial and OSS PIC BASIC> compilers. I> need 18F support - ideally something that has rudimentry USB> support> out-of-the-box.> > Any opinions or faves from PIClisters?> > TIA,> > -marc> > -- > Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com>
Victor Fraenckel wrote:
> Andrew Kieran wrote:
>
>
>> I'm using their C compiler and am very satisfied.
>>
>
> I'm using their Pascal Compiler and am very satisfied as well.
>
> Vic
>
> *____________________________________________________________________________________________*
>
> *Victor Fraenckel
> KC2GUI
> victorf ATSIGN windreader DOT com**
> *
>
>
>
Thanks, Vic. I purchased their Pascal as well, I have plenty of code
space, and just need an easy way to emplement Pascal, as some complex
math was written in Pascal, and it would take 5 years to do it in MPASM.
Let me know if there is anything I need to know to use it.....
You can go to http://www.mikroe.com and download it. The only limitation is the ouput is limited to 2K. That way you can get an idea if you like it before spending money on it.
FJ> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:00:50 -0700> From: RemoveMEengineerTakeThisOuTcotse.net> To: spamBeGonepiclistspamBeGonemit.edu> Subject: Re: [PIC]: Best PIC BASIC compiler?> > Victor Fraenckel wrote:> > Andrew Kieran wrote:> >> > > >> I'm using their C compiler and am very satisfied. > >> > >> > I'm using their Pascal Compiler and am very satisfied as well.> >> > Vic> >> > *____________________________________________________________________________________________*> >> > *Victor Fraenckel> > KC2GUI> > victorf ATSIGN windreader DOT com**> > *> >> >> > > Thanks, Vic. I purchased their Pascal as well, I have plenty of code > space, and just need an easy way to emplement Pascal, as some complex> math was written in Pascal, and it would take 5 years to do it in MPASM.> > Let me know if there is anything I need to know to use it.....> > --Bob> >
> I've been looking at both commercial and OSS PIC BASIC compilers. I
> need 18F support - ideally something that has rudimentry USB support
> out-of-the-box.
>
> Any opinions or faves from PIClisters?
>
> TIA,
>
> -marc
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
> I notice that no one has suggested the microEngineering Labs PICBASIC Pro
> Compiler. Anyone have experience with it they want to share?
I've been using PBP for around 8 years, and wouldn't trade it for anything. It's very stable,
they add new device support very fast, it has an open library, and no problem installing/using
it on any PC you own. Without a hardware dongle or restrictions to a single PC.
There are several other good ones out there, but I'm not a big fan of hardware dongles. I also
have C18 and CCS, but PBP is the only BASIC compiler I spend any real time with.
At 05:05 PM 2/15/2008, Steve Moulding wrote:
>I notice that no one has suggested the microEngineering Labs PICBASIC Pro
>Compiler. Anyone have experience with it they want to share?
Its what one of our developers uses here at my workplace. I also
purchased for him a copy of the Swordfish compiler from David Barker
(based on David's spectacular Microcode Studio Plus) but Ryan prefers PBP.
I don't use either for my projects (yet) but I can tell you that Ryan
has turned out some very impressive projects in a shockingly-short
time frame using PBP. He likes PBP very much.
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:15:51 -0700, Dwayne Reid wrote:
> At 05:05 PM 2/15/2008, Steve Moulding wrote:
>> I notice that no one has suggested the microEngineering Labs PICBASIC
>> Pro Compiler. Anyone have experience with it they want to share?
>>
>
> Its what one of our developers uses here at my workplace. I also
> purchased for him a copy of the Swordfish compiler from David Barker
> (based on David's spectacular Microcode Studio Plus) but Ryan prefers PBP.
>
> I don't use either for my projects (yet) but I can tell you that Ryan has
> turned out some very impressive projects in a shockingly-short time frame
> using PBP. He likes PBP very much.
>
> I do not know of any negative aspects about PBP.
I was curious how any of you guys that develop PIC applications in Basic
debug them? Is there a source level debugger included with them? Does it
interface with ICD2 or similar debugger (MPLAB source level plug-in or
similar)? Or are you stuck with "churn and burn" debugging?
I've never seen this discussed before. I know when I evaluate C tools, the
debugger is just about as important as the compiler for me as I probably
spend more time debugging and testing code than I do writing it.
Basic seems like it might be a good way to rapid prototype PIC software so
I'm kind of curious.
I use to use MPLAB and assembler until my current project. I had an emulator for debugging. I decided to give ME Basic a try because of their support and huge library of routines. When they offer peripherals, they supply routines in basic, pascal, and C as well. I didn't want to have to write routines for graphic LCD, touch screen, USB, SDram, etc.
I use the C and Basic compilers from Mikroelektronika as well as their development boards. Their boards have a built in in-ciruit debugger. Allows you to step through one line at a time and examine registers and variables. http://www.circuit-ed.com
Good luck,
FJ> From: RemoveMEpiclistTakeThisOuTmps-design.com> To: piclistEraseME.....mit.edu> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:45:42 -0600> Subject: Re: [PIC]: Best PIC BASIC compiler?> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:15:51 -0700, Dwayne Reid wrote:> > At 05:05 PM 2/15/2008, Steve Moulding wrote:> >> I notice that no one has suggested the microEngineering Labs PICBASIC> >> Pro Compiler. Anyone have experience with it they want to share?> >>> >> > Its what one of our developers uses here at my workplace. I also> > purchased for him a copy of the Swordfish compiler from David Barker> > (based on David's spectacular Microcode Studio Plus) but Ryan prefers PBP.> >> > I don't use either for my projects (yet) but I can tell you that Ryan has> > turned out some very impressive projects in a shockingly-short time frame> > using PBP. He likes PBP very much.> >> > I do not know of any negative aspects about PBP.> > I was curious how any of you guys that develop PIC applications in Basic> debug them? Is there a source level debugger incl!
uded with them? Does it> interface with ICD2 or similar debugger (MPLAB source level plug-in or> similar)? Or are you stuck with "churn and burn" debugging?> > I've never seen this discussed before. I know when I evaluate C tools, the> debugger is just about as important as the compiler for me as I probably> spend more time debugging and testing code than I do writing it.> > Basic seems like it might be a good way to rapid prototype PIC software so> I'm kind of curious.> > Matt Pobursky> Maximum Performance Systems> >
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:15:51 -0700, Dwayne Reid wrote:
>> At 05:05 PM 2/15/2008, Steve Moulding wrote:
>>> I notice that no one has suggested the microEngineering Labs PICBASIC
>>> Pro Compiler. Anyone have experience with it they want to share?
>>>
>>
>> Its what one of our developers uses here at my workplace. I also
>> purchased for him a copy of the Swordfish compiler from David Barker
>> (based on David's spectacular Microcode Studio Plus) but Ryan prefers
>> PBP.
>>
>> I don't use either for my projects (yet) but I can tell you that Ryan has
>> turned out some very impressive projects in a shockingly-short time frame
>> using PBP. He likes PBP very much.
>>
>> I do not know of any negative aspects about PBP.
>
> I was curious how any of you guys that develop PIC applications in Basic
> debug them? Is there a source level debugger included with them? Does it
> interface with ICD2 or similar debugger (MPLAB source level plug-in or
> similar)? Or are you stuck with "churn and burn" debugging?
>
> I've never seen this discussed before. I know when I evaluate C tools, the
> debugger is just about as important as the compiler for me as I probably
> spend more time debugging and testing code than I do writing it.
>
> Basic seems like it might be a good way to rapid prototype PIC software so
> I'm kind of curious.
>
> Matt Pobursky
> Maximum Performance Systems
>
> I was curious how any of you guys that develop PIC applications in Basic
> debug them? Is there a source level debugger included with them? Does it
> interface with ICD2 or similar debugger (MPLAB source level plug-in or
> similar)? Or are you stuck with "churn and burn" debugging?
PBP works with ICD/ICD2. I rarely use my ICD2, but it's an option if I need it.
> I've never seen this discussed before. I know when I evaluate C tools, the
> debugger is just about as important as the compiler for me as I probably
> spend more time debugging and testing code than I do writing it.
You can setup PBP as a language tool in MPLAB and compile/simulate or just
import the .COD file and run it through MPSIM.
> Basic seems like it might be a good way to rapid prototype PIC software so
> I'm kind of curious.
>I started using PBP quite some years ago and mostly its pretty good for
>what
> it is, which is
> an old school BASIC language.
>
> unless things have changed it doesn't support subs and functions, the
> biggest data type is a word and no floating point.
>
> Swordfish on the other hand does support sub and functions passing by ref,
> structures 32bit floats.....
>
> and the hardware support is pretty good, it even supports various
> graphical lcd's and file system on sd cards. and interrupts
>
> there's a built in web update so you always can get the latest version
> and new device support. This is something I hate about PBP
> as you have to prove that you paid for it and you have to pay for the
> upgrade. This makes the dongle worth it alone.
>
> The only real down side for some people is that it only supports pic18's.
>
> Richard B
>
> PS I have no links with SF I just quite like it.
>
> http://www.sfcompiler.co.uk/forum/
>
> http://www.sfcompiler.co.uk/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=SwordfishUser.Modules
>
> http://www.sfcompiler.co.uk/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=SwordfishUser.SDMMCWavPlayer
>
>
>
>
>
>
cox.net> wrote:
