>I started using PBP quite some years ago and mostly its pretty good for 
>what
> it is, which is
> an old school BASIC language.
>
> unless things have changed it doesn't support subs and functions, the 
> biggest data type is a word and no floating point.
>
> Swordfish on the other hand does support sub and functions passing by ref, 
> structures 32bit floats.....
>
> and the hardware support is pretty good, it even supports various 
> graphical lcd's and file system on sd cards. and interrupts
>
> there's a built in web update  so you always can get the latest version 
> and new device support. This is something I hate about PBP
> as you have to prove that you paid for it and you have to pay for the 
> upgrade. This makes the dongle worth it alone.
>
> The only real down side for some people is that it only supports pic18's.
>
> Richard B
>
> PS I have no links with SF I just quite like it.
>
> http://www.sfcompiler.co.uk/forum/
>
> http://www.sfcompiler.co.uk/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=SwordfishUser.Modules
>
> http://www.sfcompiler.co.uk/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=SwordfishUser.SDMMCWavPlayer
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steve Moulding" <fti1983@xmission.com>
> To: <piclist@mit.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 12:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [PIC]: Best PIC BASIC compiler?
>
>
>>I notice that no one has suggested the microEngineering Labs PICBASIC Pro
>> Compiler.  Anyone have experience with it they want to share?
>>
>>
>> Marc Nicholas wrote:
>>> I've been looking at both commercial and OSS PIC BASIC compilers. I
>>> need 18F support - ideally something that has rudimentry USB support
>>> out-of-the-box.
>>>
>>> Any opinions or faves from PIClisters?
> 

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