I have been using MPLAB 6.10 for a few weeks only.  Not game yet to try 6.12
as it is not yet complete.  I only use it for coding and assembly of MPASM,
and my observations are:

a) I like the context colouring, except MPLAB gets it screwed up from time
to time, particularly with literals.  Example 'movlw 0Ah' shows the '0Ah' in
red as it should, but 'movlw 0Dh' shows the '0D' in black, and the 'h' in
purple.  Seems to compile properly, but seeing things like this makes me
paranoid that the assembler too might get it mixed up.  Duh!  Is this
Microchip's way of saying "be more consistent with your literal definitions"
?

b) Had to go and fix much of my indentation after changing tabs to spaces.

c) Why, oh why, oh why has Microchip STILL not given us the ability to split
a code window?  I was really hoping they would have put this in :(  I have a
few projects with upwards of 10,000 lines of code in them, and would really
like to be able to split a window so, for example, I can see my register bit
assignments at the top of code whilst working way deep down somewhere else
using them.  I asked for it after version 5 but seems I was completely
ignored - which is why I attempted to use Visual Studio as my IDE, but that
is not a good option because you do not get the output window so cannot
click on errors to "go to that line".

d) It does not pick up the processor option from code.  First compile of my
f877 code generated a zillion errors and froze the IDE (!) because the
compiler was set for an 18C series chip.  I was hoping that Microchip may
have done something to pick the processor from the include line in code.  I
suppose this is asking a bit too much - except that even a zillion errors
shouldn't freeze the IDE :(

e) Cannot see much other difference seeing as I only use it for
coding/assembly except support for some newer PIC's.


-----Original Message-----
From: pic microcontroller discussion list
[mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Mike Harrison
Sent: Sunday, 2 March 2003 10:17 am
To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: [PIC]: MPLAB opinions sought


On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:03:19 -0700, you wrote:

>At 06:20 PM 3/1/03 +0000, Dave Dilatush wrote:
>>I've been using the 16-bit versions of MPLAB for several years,
>>and have so far put off switching over to MPLAB v6.10 out of a
>>general dislike for being the first to try out new- and
>>potentially buggy- software.
>
>Version 6.12 is what I've been using for the past couple of weeks.  It is
>far from complete.
>
>Things are done pretty much completely different from the 16 bit
>version.  Some things are better, some things worse.  I have found no
>outright bugs yet but there are certainly many things I don't like.
>
>Case in point: the new version seems to hide stuff that used to be readily
>available.  OSCCAL bits are not visible - you can't change them, you can't
>even view them.
>
>Controls seem to be scattered all over the place - stuff that affects the
>debugger or emulator is NOT all gathered in one easy to locate area but
>instead spread throughout the whole MPLAB interface, often hidden several
>levels inside functions that you would not normally think off.
>
>Help functions are a joke.
>
>My opinion, for what its worth, is to get the current version, use it, then
>start giving feedback to Microchip.  I think that is the only way were
>going to get a useable version.  It *is* the future - Microchip needs our
>feedback to make it a future we enjoy using.
Is there any likelihood they'll actually listen though - there are umpteen
years-old problems in the
older MPLABs that I gave up complaining about.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu