On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Brandon Stewart wrote:

> Everyone recommends C2C as a good free alternative to High-Tech.  Is it that
> good and what do you loose by using c2c instead of high-Tech?

I guess that depends on what you mean by good.

I haven't used either too much, but as I recall, c2c has a
weak/non-existant pre-processor. For example, you can't use #ifdef
constructs. There's an issue with signed/unsigned chars. For example, you
can't say "signed char". There's also an issue with structures. On the
version I had, structures were not recognized. Maybe these issues have
been fixed. Maybe not. But in either case, you can't easily change the
ingredients of free beer...

In my (biased) opinion, SDCC is much better than c2c. Neither aren't
nearly as good as the professional packages sold by HiTech or ByteCraft.
For hobbyists, I recommend SDCC. For professionals, I recommend commercial
C compilers.

Scott

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads