Mark Hellman wrote:

> Allen,
>
> Thanks for the effort! Could you try it again using the supplied (Hi-Tech)
> I2C lib? (I assume it comes with I2C support) My point was that for $800 I
> expect vastly superior code to be generated _without_ resorting to down
> coding in ASM. ANSI complience does _not_ justify the price they ask, nice
> tight code generation close to ASM would (Major pipe dream!).

If you really believe that the meeting the standard isn't worth that much, well,
then you are due for a pleasant surprise (or not, if you don't have it). There
are about 10 subtle things in the preprocessor (for example) that can make your
collection of general purpose routines a dream to use. When you find yourself
saying "So that's why they did that," then you're on the right track.

Remember, C has a world unto itself with a stranger obfuscated tradition than
these simple Microchip products. There was a time that a genuine C hacker could
do magic with the simplest code. That stuff isn't gone, or any less valuable;
it's just overshadowed by the current fascination with PC And Things PC. For all
of the simplicity of it's definition, C (and the preprocessor and the operating
environment hooks) is very carefully thought out. Ignoring any part of that (in
a compiler design) can lead to frustration, despair, and longer coffee breaks.

It isn't really about portability. It's about the way the tool really should be.

--Tom Rogers  VP-R&D  Time Tech Inc.