Please don't take offense, but I see a good product that works for me
getting trashed, so ...

Andy Kunz wrote:

> I look at the great cost savings in time by not having to check the
> generated assembly code (a necessity with CCS) as the major offset to the
> cost of using HiTech (which, when I bought it, was actually cheaper than
> CCS).

1. I look at the great cost savings in spending $100 instead of $700 on
products which, for my needs, are equivalent.  Also,

2. I've never checked the generated assembly code and my application
runs just fine.  Of course, not knowing PIC assembler is one reason why
I haven't checked it.  I see no need.  I know C and I know that my
application runs.

> The HiTech code is clean, efficient, and very predictable.  The CCS code
> was usually rather obtuse.

I code with CCS because I have a product to get out, not because it
generates beutiful assembler.  My customers could care less what the
code looks like.  They want the application to work.

> The HiTech allows linking of modules into the final product, and has all
> the features a _real_ C system needs:  multiple output steps of code (ie,
> you can get a .PRE output, a .AS output, .OBJ, etc. up to a .HEX), a
> standalone assembler, & linker.  Basically, it's a REAL product.

Gee, you mean that I haven't been programming with a REAL product?  I
guess that I should throw away a nearly completed product and spend
seven times what I spent for CCS just so that I can work with a 'REAL'
compiler?

Sorry for the sarcasm Andy, but we don't all have unlimited budgets.  If
something works, and it is inexpensive, I'll buy it.  I don't need a ton
of bells and whistles which, for me at least, are completely useless
features.  Why pay for something that most (?) people will never use?

Jim Dolson
jdolson@iserv.net