Padu wrote:
> From: "Bob Axtell"
>   
>> Timothy Weber wrote:
>>     
>>> I used it for a couple projects.  Seemed nice, and I normally prefer
>>> Pascal, but I've settled on BoostC now.  My observations on the mikro*
>>> family were:
>>>
>>> - Simulator very limited compared to MPSIM
>>>
>>> - Not compatible with MPLAB - you have to use it in its own IDE as far
>>> as I recall
>>>
>>> - Generated code is very large compared to other compilers (on a small,
>>> biased sample of code)
>>>
>>> This was as of October of last year.
>>>
>>>       
>
>   
>> That's the kind of info I like to hear.
>>     
>
>
> I've been using it since version 2. It was very buggy in the earlier 
> versions, and I've chosen mp because of my familiarity with Delphi and 
> because I'm a software engineer instead of an EE. After using delphi, java 
> and c# I avoid at all costs having to return to asm (although I had to a few 
> times). Most of the bugs are gone now, unless you are using a newly 
> developed feature or library. I agree that the hex file may not be optimal 
> in performance and/or size, but for the things I am doing it is good enough.
>
> I'm happy with it, and the time it saved me with the libraries and the 
> shorter learning curve from my pascal background far outweights its 
> shortcomings.
>
> Cheers
>
> Padu 
>
>   
wouldn't it be nice if we had some benchmark programs to compare the 
different compilers,
but I guess it's (almost) impossible.
And now that's the first advantage I see for C.
(btw for those who didn't know I'm a Delphi/JAL fan(atic) )

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