PIC'ers There are freeware/shareware C compilers available for PICs that are suitable for the hobbyist. If you write PIC C code for a living, by all means purchase one of the excellent production quality C compilers (like the one from Walter Banks). I have been using a C compiler called C2C from Pavel Baranov () for quite some time and am perfectly happy with it for hobbyist use. Also (I think) there are C compilers available from the GNUPIC group. Just my $.02 worth, Adam spweb@GLOBALNET.CO.UK on 02/14/99 11:36:26 AM Please respond to PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU cc: (bcc: Adam Bryant/PEAK/MOORE) Subject: Re: Languages - ASM (MPASM) Vs. BASIC (PBC) Well - Im not doing this professionally - the reason i said discount the money fromt he equation is since i already have pbc - i was merely refering to the cost of pbc you see... I do already know C - but I also do this as a hobby and would be unwilling to spend any large amount of money purchasing more PIC tools... ICQ: 23977120 E-Mail: spweb@globalnet.co.uk ----- Original Message ----- From: w. v. ooijen / f. hanneman To: Sent: Sunday, February 14, 1999 1:32 PM Subject: Re: Languages - ASM (MPASM) Vs. BASIC (PBC) >> Please can you provide me with some other perspectives and opinions - I >will >> be soon undertaking a largerish project and I need to be sure in my >choice >> before i proceed. >> Assume the price of the programming tools is not an issue > >Buy the best C compiler you can get and see whether it does your job. >Learning C will never be a waist. >If you get into speed/size problems recode the critical parts in assembler >(so get a C compiler which integrates smoothly with assembler). > >(I do not follow that path - for me PIC is a hobby, so the price of my >tools IS an >issue - I write them myself. But in my professional life I would always >follow the >indicated path, maybe Ada instead of C, but the principle is the same). > >regards, >Wouter. >