Re:
>  > Unless the rules have changed, I believe that the program must not
>>  only be written in C, but specifically in HiTech C.
>
>...thus disqualifying the vast majority of PIC developers, especially
>those who don't do it for a living with employer money.  I could very well
>be wrong, but isn't HT PICC by far the most expensive compiler you can
>find for the PIC?

Yes, PICC is expensive, but good tools are expensive (e.g. Salvo,
PICC, PICC-18, IAR compilers, etc.), or they're free (gcc, etc.). I
don't mean to demean other low-cost compilers, it's just that with
the price comes performance, flexibility, support, etc. I won't
disagree that employer money helps when purchasing these products.
That's why we offer Salvo Lite, a fully-functional freeware version
of our RTOS. You do still need a compatible compiler, though.

Here's why we offered a free copy of Salvo to the winner of the
contest (under its original rules, of course): Not a single line of
your Salvo code would have to change to port the application from
PIC16 to PIC17 to PIC18 (and to several other platforms, coming up in
v3.0). Writing the rest of the application (IDE interface) in C would
result in similarly easy portability.

With Salvo, we left the assembly-language realm a long time ago
(Salvo v1.0 was in PIC17 assembly), and our customers have put that
to great use. With the cross-platform portability that Salvo offers,
if your employer decides that an alternative processor (e.g. an 8051)
is going to replace a PIC, you can take your Salvo app with you ...

--

  ______________________________________
   Andrew E. Kalman, Ph.D.   aek@pumpkininc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.