Post by thread:[PIC] C compiler for 16F series without "activatio

I just got inconvenienced by my paid copy of Hi-Tech PICC and I think I should jump ship for my sanity and also the future maintainability of the code I write. I want something that's not going to be too far off in terms of syntax. Something that's fairly efficient. Current target is 16F884. Too tired to be particularly eloquent right now. Or maybe I used the good words already in my email to Hi-Tech. Cheerful regards, Bob

Bob Blick wrote: > I just got inconvenienced by my paid copy of Hi-Tech > PICC and I think I should jump ship for my sanity and > also the future maintainability of the code I write. > > I want something that's not going to be too far off in > terms of syntax. Something that's fairly efficient. > Current target is 16F884. I have not spent a lot of time with other PIC compilers, but BoostC has worked well for me. No dongles or activation schemes other than a serial number that unlocks non-free functionality. -- Timothy J. Weber http://timothyweber.org

On 11/5/07, Bob Blick <spam_OUTbbblickTakeThisOuTsbcglobal.net> wrote: > I just got inconvenienced by my paid copy of Hi-Tech > PICC and I think I should jump ship for my sanity and > also the future maintainability of the code I write. > > I want something that's not going to be too far off in > terms of syntax. Something that's fairly efficient. > Current target is 16F884. > > Too tired to be particularly eloquent right now. Or > maybe I used the good words already in my email to > Hi-Tech. > You might want to move to PIC18 (PIC18J is quite cheap) and use MPLAB C18. No activation, no annual fee, life time updates, many examples and good vendor and community support. Xiaofan

I just got inconvenienced by my paid copy of Hi-Tech > PICC and I think I should jump ship for my sanity and > also the future maintainability of the code I write. > > I want something that's not going to be too far off in > terms of syntax. Something that's fairly efficient. > Current target is 16F884. Why don't you go a little rad and check out the C compiler at MikroElektronika here: http://www.mikroe.com/ I am a registered user of their Pascal compiler and have had good support. My target is the 16F877A. All of their compilers are under active upgrading and there is a large user community and decent forums. They support C, Pascal and Basic. You can try before you buy as well. Read some of the posts in the C forum and if you register yourself in the forum area you can post there as well. Vic -- *____________________________________________________________________________________________* *Victor Fraenckel KC2GUI victorf ATSIGN windreader DOT com** *

Victor Fraenckel wrote: > Why don't you go a little rad and check out the C compiler at MikroElektronika here: > > http://www.mikroe.com/ > > I am a registered user of their Pascal compiler and have had good support. My target is the 16F877A. All of their compilers are under active upgrading and there is a large user community and decent forums. They support C, Pascal and Basic. You can try before you buy as well. Read some of the posts in the C forum and if you register yourself in the forum area you can post there as well. Do you know if their code generation/optimization has improved? I tried MikroC/Pascal a couple years ago and the assembly it produced seemed really bloated. I also recall their compiler didn't work with MPLAB - is that still true? -- Timothy J. Weber http://timothyweber.org

On 11/5/07, Timothy J. Weber <.....twKILLspam@spam@timothyweber.org> wrote: > Do you know if their code generation/optimization has improved? I tried > MikroC/Pascal a couple years ago and the assembly it produced seemed > really bloated. I also recall their compiler didn't work with MPLAB - > is that still true? I do not know about the code generation/optimization quality but I know it does not work within MPLAB. >From MPLAB 7.62, I can see that For CC5X/CC8E, Byte Craft MPC, CCS C, Hitech PICC and IAR C are supported. Boost C also supports MPLAB integration through vendor plugin. MicroC/Basic/Pascal do not have plugins for MPLAB. Wiz-C does not have plugins for MPLAB. Xiaofan

On 11/5/07, Xiaofan Chen <xiaofancKILLspamgmail.com> wrote: > On 11/5/07, Bob Blick <.....bbblickKILLspam.....sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > I just got inconvenienced by my paid copy of Hi-Tech > > PICC and I think I should jump ship for my sanity and > > also the future maintainability of the code I write. > > > > I want something that's not going to be too far off in > > terms of syntax. Something that's fairly efficient. > > Current target is 16F884. > > > > Too tired to be particularly eloquent right now. Or > > maybe I used the good words already in my email to > > Hi-Tech. > > > > You might want to move to PIC18 (PIC18J is quite cheap) > and use MPLAB C18. No activation, no annual fee, life > time updates, many examples and good vendor and > community support. > You might want to consider CC5X and Byte Craft MPC if you really want to move out of Hitech PICC. I think as you have already invested in HiTech PICC, the best is to live with the dongle and activation. Last time my copy of PICC already required Internet activation for updating. Xiaofan

{Quote hidden}>-----Original Message----- >From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmit.edu [piclist-bouncesspam_OUTmit.edu] >On Behalf Of Bob Blick >Sent: 05 November 2007 00:37 >To: @spam@piclistKILLspammit.edu >Subject: [PIC] C compiler for 16F series without "activation" >or "dongles"? > > >I just got inconvenienced by my paid copy of Hi-Tech >PICC and I think I should jump ship for my sanity and >also the future maintainability of the code I write. > >I want something that's not going to be too far off in >terms of syntax. Something that's fairly efficient. >Current target is 16F884. > >Too tired to be particularly eloquent right now. Or >maybe I used the good words already in my email to >Hi-Tech. Did you get a reply? I find activation and dongles very irritating, but it seems like virtualy all the professional quality compilers require one or the other. Regards Mike ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. =======================================================================

On 11/5/07, Michael Rigby-Jones <KILLspamMichael.Rigby-JonesKILLspambookham.com> wrote: > Did you get a reply? I find activation and dongles very irritating, but it seems > like virtualy all the professional quality compilers require one or the other. True for IAR and Keil. We use USB dongle for IAR ARM compiler and Network node locked version for Keil C51. Both need annual maintenance. The other group are using all kinds of dongles. Microchip C18 and C30 are said to be pretty good toward this aspect. Free lifetime upgrade is really a big bonus. PC compiler vendors are much better. Xiaofan

--- Michael Rigby-Jones <RemoveMEMichael.Rigby-JonesTakeThisOuTbookham.com> wrote: > Did you get a reply? I find activation and dongles > very irritating, but it seems like virtualy all the > professional quality compilers require one or the > other. I did get a reply. But it wasn't very helpful, since it confirmed my worst fears. Upsetting a few paying customers is OK with them in order to close all "loopholes". Other than my general dislike of dongles or activation (BTW, Hi-Tech uses internet activation, not a dongle, although I hate both), the thing that has put the nail in the coffin is activation even for the time-limited demo. When I archive the files for a project, I include the version of the compiler I used along with the other files. That way I can always start from the same point with no surprises. However the new versions of Hi-Tech all require internet activation, even the time-limited demo. I can definitely see situations where some time in the future my old version won't activate. I found out about it when I needed to put the compiler on my laptop in order to work at home, and it wouldn't even install in demo mode. When I get past this current deadline I'll either port the project to something else, or create a device file for the 16F884 that will work with an earlier version of Hi-Tech. I will let the piclist know what alternative I settle on. Cheerful regards, Bob

Bob, Is there a way I can contact you directly about this? Thanks, Matt On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 08:46:43 -0800 (PST), Bob Blick wrote: {Quote hidden}> I did get a reply. But it wasn't very helpful, since it confirmed my > worst fears. Upsetting a few paying customers is OK with them in order to > close all "loopholes". > > Other than my general dislike of dongles or activation (BTW, Hi-Tech uses > internet activation, not a dongle, although I hate both), the thing that > has put the nail in the coffin is activation even for the time-limited > demo. When I archive the files for a project, I include the version of > the compiler I used along with the other files. That way I can always > start from the same point with no surprises. However the new versions of > Hi-Tech all require internet activation, even the time-limited demo. I > can definitely see situations where some time in the future my old > version won't activate. > > I found out about it when I needed to put the compiler on my laptop in > order to work at home, and it wouldn't even install in demo mode. > > When I get past this current deadline I'll either port the project to > something else, or create a device file for the 16F884 that will work > with an earlier version of Hi-Tech. > > I will let the piclist know what alternative I settle on. > > Cheerful regards, > Bob