>I'm sorry, but I can't believe in it.
That is ok. What works for me does not have to work for you.
I was just pointing out the results that we found.
We have to stay with C because we intend on changing the platform to PC104
some day soon.

-----Original Message-----
From: pic microcontroller discussion list
[mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Kestas Biliunas
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 1999 10:07 AM
To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: CCS compiler


Roy Souther wrote:
>
> I am using the CCS compiler and found that the RAM management is far
better
> then that of Hi-Tech's compiler.
> We are programming 16c77's and with the Hi-Tech we had almost use 100% of
> RAM and ROM but on the CCS we recovered about 10% of each and it works
> great.

I'm sorry, but I can't believe in it.
After I began to use HI-TECH compiler, I almost don't use assembler.
But after I have wrote a little piece of C code, I compile it and
watch ASM code suddenly. And this is a way how change my style of
programming. By this way I get wonderful results.


Barry King wrote:

>
> I really liked the idea of built in library support for I2C master
> and slave-- except that it has bugs.
>
> Can any of you Hi-Tech users tell me if there is library support
> (that works) for the I2C slave or master?

These librarys aren't a feature of compiler. It's only an addition for
the compiler. A possibility to make your own librarys (which  HI-TECH
has) is an important feature.

The biggest and most important advantage of HI-TECH is ANSI
compatiblety. But this advantage makes some disadvantages comparing with
others compilers (e. f. there is no 24-bit integer arithmetic, which for
PIC's app. would be very useful).

It's clear to me, which compiler is the best on the world ;-)

My English isn't very well, so I'm sorry for that.

Kestas Biliunas
---------------
Lithuania