>What is the general opinion of WIN AVR?
>Stable. Useful. Comparison with for-money products?
>Code size relative to xxx.
>Comparison with other available languages (BASIC, ...)?
>Other?
>
>The price is right :-)
>        Russell McMahon

We almost moved to AVR last year and I started to monitor the
AVR-GCC list. Luckily we did not do that. Microchip is still 
a much better company to deal with than Atmel for small business
customers. Anyway I still continue to monitor AVR-GCC list.

I have not used any AVR yet but my colleagues in Berlin use
AVR exclusively for quite sometime even though they may have
to move to Silicon Labs C8051F or PIC because of supply problem.

Anyway, from my perception, AVR-GCC is very stable. It is very 
useful. Its code size compares favorably with the best (IAR C),
maybe with the exception of floating point which may have some 
bugs and maintenance problem (I think one of P+F colleague in 
Mannheim wrote the original floating pointing library but I 
think he is using IAR C at work). The AVR-GCC community is quite 
helpful. Signal to noise ration of AVR-GCC related list is very 
good and all the OT stuff will be thrown out. Interestingly the 
lead developers are using FreeBSD and Windows, not Linux.
AVR-GCC is so good that the AVR port of SDCC is never finished.
SDCC is now concentrating with 8051 and PIC14/16 port.

I do not know about Bascom AVR. I guess AVR-GCC will be much
better in compiling efficiency.

The potential problem may be the documentation which is generally
lacking for most of the open source programs.

Regards,
Xiaofan

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist