"... fighting a library bug..." Yep, this is my big fear. Optimization is nice (and more so for =20 performance than code size), but not critical. Bugs in the dev =20 software are hell. Cheers, -Neil. Quoting Forrest W Christian : > It's an older opinion. I think my feeling was that features were valued > over stability. Which is great if you are wanting to play... not so > great if you are writing code which just has to work, and fighting a > library bug is not productive. > > That said, I haven't seen anything which indicates that they've stopped > 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 an= y >>> 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 fo= r >>> 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 i= t >>> was forced inline.... >>> >>> Like others, the Microchip compilers seem rock solid. If I didn't lik= e >>> the CCS IDE and didn't have a big chunk of code in CCS that I don't fee= l >>> 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 = if >>>>> 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 improve= d. >>>> 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 =20 >>>> output, I never >>>> found any bugs, works exactly the way I expect it to. Netbeans is a go= od >>>> choice for MPLAB X. Never failed me. >>>> 2. HI-TECH - /Amazing/ machine code quality, based on the optimizatio= n >>>> settings you pick for it (code size/speed). >>>> 3. CCS - Pretty good machine code quality, but the real strengths =20 >>>> are in 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 >>> >> >> > > -- > 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 .