Post by thread:[PIC]: Is C2C any good?

Everyone recommends C2C as a good free alternative to High-Tech. Is it that good and what do you loose by using c2c instead of high-Tech? -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Brandon Stewart wrote: > Everyone recommends C2C as a good free alternative to High-Tech. Is it that > good and what do you loose by using c2c instead of high-Tech? I guess that depends on what you mean by good. I haven't used either too much, but as I recall, c2c has a weak/non-existant pre-processor. For example, you can't use #ifdef constructs. There's an issue with signed/unsigned chars. For example, you can't say "signed char". There's also an issue with structures. On the version I had, structures were not recognized. Maybe these issues have been fixed. Maybe not. But in either case, you can't easily change the ingredients of free beer... In my (biased) opinion, SDCC is much better than c2c. Neither aren't nearly as good as the professional packages sold by HiTech or ByteCraft. For hobbyists, I recommend SDCC. For professionals, I recommend commercial C compilers. Scott -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

> Everyone recommends C2C as a good free alternative to High-Tech. Is it that > good and what do you loose by using c2c instead of high-Tech? Hi-Tech is almost ANSI-C and C2C is, well, somewhat like C. And C2C is no longer supported. Wouter van Ooijen -- Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl Jal compiler, Wisp programmer, WLoader bootloader, PICs kopen -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

Scott Dattalo wrote: {Quote hidden}> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Brandon Stewart wrote: > > >>Everyone recommends C2C as a good free alternative to High-Tech. Is it that >>good and what do you loose by using c2c instead of high-Tech? > > > I guess that depends on what you mean by good. > > I haven't used either too much, but as I recall, c2c has a > weak/non-existant pre-processor. For example, you can't use #ifdef > constructs. There's an issue with signed/unsigned chars. For example, you > can't say "signed char". There's also an issue with structures. On the > version I had, structures were not recognized. Maybe these issues have > been fixed. Maybe not. But in either case, you can't easily change the > ingredients of free beer... > > In my (biased) opinion, SDCC is much better than c2c. Neither aren't > nearly as good as the professional packages sold by HiTech or ByteCraft. > For hobbyists, I recommend SDCC. For professionals, I recommend commercial > C compilers. > > Scott C2C was bought by Kanda, and is now Optama. See http://www.optama.com for more information. Bryan - Software Engineer - Kanda Systems Ltd -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, BryanW wrote: > > C2C was bought by Kanda, and is now Optama. See http://www.optama.com > for more information. I heard about Kanda, but not Optama. Is C2C still being developed? I just went back and tried an old copy I had laying around and verified that it had no preprocessor or struct support. But this is an *old* copy - 3.27.8e. Scott -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

There is a version of C2C on the Matrix Multimedia learning C for PICs Cd. There was a C++ version - don't think it did structs but it did provide a track of function calls and IRC ignored unused prototypes at compilation. Not downloadable from the C2C site but was if you took the German Link. colin -- cdb, spam_OUTbodgy1TakeThisOuToptusnet.com.au on 27/06/2002 -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

Brandon Stewart wrote: > > Everyone recommends C2C as a good free alternative to High-Tech. Is it that > good and what do you loose by using c2c instead of high-Tech? the hitec is a c compiler the c2c is c like compiler try the cc5x that is very good alternative. udv Csaba -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics

Hi, please do not forget CCS. It is a very good workhorse with a lot of functions (builtins). Not necessarily ANSI-compatible, but the deviation is not terrible. For $99 it is a bargain. The 2.xxx line is stopped, but the last member of this is mature enough. My $0.02. Regards, Imre On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Also-Antal Csaba wrote: {Quote hidden}> Brandon Stewart wrote: > > > > Everyone recommends C2C as a good free alternative to High-Tech. Is it that > > good and what do you loose by using c2c instead of high-Tech? > > the hitec is a c compiler > the c2c is c like compiler > > try the cc5x that is very good alternative. > > udv > Csaba > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics > > > -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email .....listservKILLspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body