It's an older opinion. I think my feeling was that features were valued=20 over stability. Which is great if you are wanting to play... not so=20 great if you are writing code which just has to work, and fighting a=20 library bug is not productive. That said, I haven't seen anything which indicates that they've stopped=20 chasing new functionality. -forrest On 9/6/2011 9:12 AM, PICdude wrote: > I'm looking at this for 18F's, but may use it for PIC32's later. At > that point I'd have to buy yet another version if I were using C18. > > I say one of your older posts (few years) where you also said you > would not use it for anything production. Is this opinion below new > and revised, or based on that past experience? > > Cheers, > -Neil. > > > > Quoting Forrest Christian: > >> I own a licensed copy of MikroC, but it isn't currently installed on any >> machine... >> >> I really liked the libraries - if I was doing hobby stuff with PIC's I >> think it would be my choice, along with an EasyPIC development board for >> prototyping work. It didn't feel 'production stable' though... >> >> But it definitely didn't seem any better than CCS or the Microchip >> compiler. I like the CCS IDE although the C compiler pissed me off >> earlier this weekend due to an apparent bug in the #inline pragma... or >> more specifically, I had a function which decided it wouldn't work if it >> was forced inline.... >> >> Like others, the Microchip compilers seem rock solid. If I didn't like >> the CCS IDE and didn't have a big chunk of code in CCS that I don't feel >> like porting this week, I'd definitely switch to C18 for everything. >> Espeically since I don't use PIC16's in any 'new' projects anymore. >> >> -forrest >> >> On 9/6/2011 1:05 AM, V G wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 6:32 PM, PICdude wrote: >>> >>>> Would you care to comment on it's stability& "bug-free-ness"? And i= f >>>> you have any size comparisons between this and any other compiler (or >>>> even MPASM), that would be nice. >>>> >>> My comment here probably has of little value, but: >>> >>> I don't like it. I tried it many months ago and I just don't like it. >>> Doesn't feel right, ya know? >>> >>> >>> Update: just checked the website. The IDE seems to have vastly improved= .. >>> Maybe the compiler and libraries have as well. I will try it again. >>> >>> For C, my preference of compilers is as follows (for various reasons): >>> >>> 1. Microchip - Good support, solid compilers, very good code output, I = never >>> found any bugs, works exactly the way I expect it to. Netbeans is a goo= d >>> choice for MPLAB X. Never failed me. >>> 2. HI-TECH - /Amazing/ machine code quality, based on the optimization >>> settings you pick for it (code size/speed). >>> 3. CCS - Pretty good machine code quality, but the real strengths are i= n the >>> libraries and ease of use. IDE is kinda fun. Very easy to get started. >>> >>> I may insert Mikro between #2 and #3 after I try it out. >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ& list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >> > > --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .