Hello, here is my 2 cent. I am armored with the same tools, and I use (almost) exclusively CCS C and for me personally it means a 5 to 10 factor in speed increase factor. Why? - because I don't need to bother with variable housekeeping (local variables, bank switching, array management) - because I don't need to bother with arithmetics (a complex expression may generate a lot of machine instructions and/or calls) - because of a vaste amount of predefined routines supporting the built-in peripherials - because of the compactness and the readibility of the source code I have projects exhausting almost the whole 8k code space, about 50k of source code or so. How could one manage it written in assembly, providing I need to maintain several projects parallel? Only my humble opinion. Regards, Imre +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity | | to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or | | privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or | | other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this | | information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient | | is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the | | sender and delete the material from any computer. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, James Paul wrote: > All, > > My 2 cents worth. As I have stated before, I have tried 'C', and > 'BASIC', and as far as I'm concerned, with PICS, neither of them is > optimum or even that much faster. I can put together a program in > assembly nearly as fast as anyone else can in in a high level language. > I own the 'CCS' 'C' compiler as well as PIC Basic Pro, and have used > neither of them in the last year or so. I use assembly exclusively. > And have found I miss neither of the two HLL's I have. I honestly > don't know whty people in general don't like assembly. It does have a > learning curve, (and what doesn't), and it's maybe not as fast to develop > software using assembly at first, but when you get used to it, I'm sure > you'll find its not as difficult to quickly write nearly anything you need. > At least that's my opinion. Maybe with some of the newer PICs coming > out, 'C' might make a little more sense, but I'll probably stay with > assembly for my projects. > > P.S. I program PICs bot as a hobby for myself and as a function of my job. > I have written programs for several PICS from 8 pin parts to the 68 > pin parts, and have had most of my designs integrated into the design > of the system we were working on at the time. And all have been in > assembly. > > > Regards, > > Jim > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Brandon Stewart [SMTP:brandonstewart@ATTBI.COM] > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 5:21 PM > >> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU > >> Subject: [PIC]: PIC development STINKS! > >> > >> I say that PIC needs to offer free C compilers for their > >> product, like some of their competitors, if they want to > >> be #1! It was my understanding that Microchip set out > >> to differentiate itself from its competitors by offering > >> free development environments for its MCU's (like > >> MPLAB). But today's toys are bigger, smarter, faster, > >> and often times the level of abstraction that is offered > >> by C is the preferable manner of doing things. So why > >> dosen't Microchip continue their initiative of offering > >> real, usefull development tools (LIKE A C COMPILER) for > >> free? Its competitors sure do! It is my bet that they > >> get kickbacks from HIGH TECH not to do this! > >> > > Todays bigger, smarter and faster toys probably don't use PICs. I > > really can't see what you are shouting about, you are given a (mostly) > > functional development environment with a perfectly good assembler and > > simulator. If you are a professional who needs the advantages of a > > high level language, then you pay for the best you can buy and that > > cost will be trivial, even in the short term on a profitable product. > > > > If you are a hobbiest, then there are hobbiest C compilers available > > (CCS) and Scott's SDCC port is well on the way. However, to use any of > > these products to produce compact, fast and bug free code with the > > minium of debugging time I'd say that a working knowledge of assembly > > was almost mandatory. > > > > If you are really that desparate to program in C for free, perhaps you > > should look at some of the more mature devices such as the 8051 which > > already have open source compilers. > > > > Regards > > > > Mike > > > > -- > > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics > (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics > > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.