Dale's got a good point. I own (and use) 3 different PIC C compilers
and they all have distinct "personalities". I've used these compilers
for dozens of projects over the past 10 years or so. All of them
have improved my productivity vs. Assembler, although I do still mix
some inline assembly on the rare occasion I really need it.

As a comparison, here's my experience with the following compilers:

Hitech PICC: Most ANSI compatible, least efficient memory use (RAM
and ROM), least "user friendly". Extremely reliable and good tech
support. A high quality professional tool, but expensive for a casual
user or hobbyist.

CCS: Best range of library functions, moderately efficient memory
usage, OK tech support. Easy to use, lots of examples and a good
user forum at CCS website. Very affordable, suitable for casual user,
student or hobbyist.  =20

ByteCraft MPC: Least ANSI compatible, most efficient -- this compiler
still continues to amaze me with it's optimizations. (Good work Walte=
r!)
I use this compiler for almost all of my professional PIC projects, i=
t's
that good. Limited library functions, excellent tech support. Moderat=
ely
priced, but probably a little expensive for students or hobbyists.=
=20

As a side note, none of them work well with MPLAB. I personally think=
 MPLAB
is one of the worst IDE's that I have used. I develop for about a doz=
en=20
different microcontroller families and MPLAB has the worst features, =
most
bugs and worst integration for source level debugging of all of them.=
=20
Microchip has been "fixing" MPLAB since I became a Microchip consulta=
nt=20
almost 10 years ago. I'm disappointed that a company the size of Micr=
ochip
can't develop a better tool than MPLAB has evolved into. As a compari=
son,
take a look at the tools available for the AVR or TI's MSP430 family.=
=20
There's just no comparison.

That said, I'm sure I'll continue to use PIC's because of their cost =
and
features. I just wish the tools were better.

Matt Pobursky
Maximum Performance Systems

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:08:14 -0600, Dale Botkin wrote:
>=A0Be careful not to paint all C compilers with the same brush. =
=A0There are
>=A0significant differences between the various available compilers f=
or the
>=A0PIC.
>=A0
>=A0Dale
>=A0--
>=A0It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off.
>=A0
>=A0
>=A0On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Mike Harrison wrote:
>=A0
>=A0>=A0This may be true of an 'ideal' compiler, but my experience of=
 the Hitech Pic16 C is that although
>=A0>=A0very reliable, it is not great at optimising for code space, =
making poor use of the possibilities of
>=A0>=A0skip instructions. Integration with MPLAB is also not great f=
or debugging.
>=A0
>=A0--
>=A0http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE to=
pic:
>=A0[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: -=
>Ads

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