a b hotmail.com> writes: > > Re: Compiler choice > > I am an experienced programmer in C and Basic on PCs and am looking to > program 16F84, 16F628, 16F876 and 16F877 chips. As many people mentioned on htis list, stay away from 16F84, more modern chips are better/cheaper > > I am new to micros and need to select a compiler that will carry me not just > through the beginner stage but serve me into the future. > > I am looking specfically at MBasic, mEL Picbasic Pro, Hitech C, and CCS C. I use CCS C and like it. Although I learned PIC programming in assembler, I never liked it. CCS C allows you to go as deep to hardware as you would like to. And you can always check listing to see the asm code. CCS C produces tight code, and is much faster to develop, especially if you have more than 8-bit math. And the price of 18F parts is not that higher compared to 16F, which allows one to move to higher performance if needed. Compared to other C compilers, CCS C has "funny" way to deal with multiple files in a project. One has to include .c file, not just headers. This allows them to eliminate the need for a linker. It's non-traditional approach, but removes any problems with linking and, in the end, makes development faster. If you go with CCS C, I would recommend to buy their programmer too. It is relatively inexpensive (~$50), but lets you do source-level debugging. > > I do not mind paying for a compiler unless there is a better free one. > Has anyone used some/all of these compilers and can give me the pros and > cons on them? > Which produces the tightest code? > Are there any others that anyone can recommend (sticking to Basic and C)? -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist