How about FEDBASIC by Robin Abbott (check out http://www.dontronics.com). A compiler is available for the 16C74 device but chips with interpreters are available. I have used a 16C84, 16C57, and the 16C74 with interpreter built in for various projects with reasonable success. There are some limitations and certain Stamp commands are not emulated directly but overall a reasonable base line development option, do not forget the compiler... Russell McMahon wrote: > > I use the first version of ME's PIC BASIC compiler (BS1 emulation). > > - Good at the price. > - Sparsely documented (some traps have to be learned by experience - > a better manual would be most welcome). > - Excellent for quick lashups. > - Not so good for real time stuff - you can go into assembler and > take over the timer etc if you want to (as I do) but must save & > restore the context (as you might expect) or it dies. Some > instructions hang until complete (eg serial in waits for a character > forever if there are no incoming characters). > - A major saving grace is that the functions/commands are coded in > large part in an .inc file in assembler source and you can modify > them if you are suitably capable (eg to make the serial in routine > time out etc). > - You can see the finished source code and hand tweak it if you wish. > - Code is reasonably tight but not as efficient as hand assembler. A > major cause is the need for it to be perfectly general - there may be > things it doesn't have to do if you are careful yourself but it can't > assume this. eg is the port pin you are writing to set to output; has > the eeprom finished writing yet etc. They choose to hand-hold in a > hidden way which slows some things down. > > For example > > High pin1 > Low pin1 > > produces a 40 microsecond high on pin 1 (with a 4MHz PIC). > MUCH slower than assembler > > - Speed overall is still MUCH faster than with a Stamp. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Bryant > To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU > Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 4:34 AM > Subject: Re: Basic Stamp info > > Could I get some user feedback on PICBASIC? I use the ME Labs Pocket > Programmer (works great!), and am wondering if the PICBASIC compiler > is > as well done. It sure would be nice to have some higher level > functions > to work with sometimes instead of having to bit-bang everything. How > efficiently (code space, execution time) are their functions coded? > Is > it possible to see the output of PICBASIC in assembly? Or would I > have > to run the hex file through a disassembler? > > Thanks in advance for the feedback. > > -----Original Message----- > From: goflo@PACBELL.NET > Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 8:30 AM > To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU > Subject: Re: [PICLIST] Basic Stamp info > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > -- > Also a PICBASIC PRO compiler which emulates the BS2 instruction > set - New version due out soon... More info at > > http://www.melabs.com > > Regards, Jack > > Russell McMahon wrote: > > > > Consider using the PICBASIC compiler by Micro-Engineering labs. > This > > implements BASIC Stamp 1 code plus a few other features and you can > > also use assembler as required. Not perfect but at $US100 it is > > cheaper than stamps after you use it for a few projects (and much > > much faster). Nino... -- ****************************************************** * Antonio (Nino) Benci * * Electronic Services Manager * * Monash University - Dept of Physics * * Wellington Rd, Clayton. 3168 * * Victoria, Australia. * * TEL - 61 3 9905 3649, FAX - 61 3 9905 3637 * * EMAIL - nino.benci@sci.monash.edu.au (work) * * - fleatech@mailexcite.com (private) * * WWW - www.physics.monash.edu.au/ * ******************************************************