Searching \ for 'PBasic PRO compiler' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/language/index.htm?key=basic
Search entire site for: 'PBasic PRO compiler'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'PBasic PRO compiler'
1998\05\29@020749 by Justin Grimm

flavicon
face
Hi all
Does anyone have experience with the PbasicPRO compiler?
Is it worth getting, and does it support all the functions of the
PIC?
Thanks

Justin Grimm    spam_OUTreaperTakeThisOuTspamsouthwest.com.au

1998\05\29@024544 by Dennis Plunkett

flavicon
face
At 01:33 PM 29/05/98 +0800, you wrote:
>Hi all
>Does anyone have experience with the PbasicPRO compiler?
>Is it worth getting, and does it support all the functions of the
>PIC?
>Thanks
>
>Justin Grimm    .....reaperKILLspamspam@spam@southwest.com.au
>
>

Hello Justin ,from a fellow Aussie
My question is why basic? The PIC assembler is quite easy, and on top of
that one could argue that C is an industry standard.

Dennis

1998\05\29@033515 by Pasi T Mustalahti

picon face
On Fri, 29 May 1998, Dennis Plunkett wrote:

> At 01:33 PM 29/05/98 +0800, you wrote:
> >Hi all
> >Does anyone have experience with the PbasicPRO compiler?
> >Is it worth getting, and does it support all the functions of the
> >PIC?
> >Thanks
> >
> >Justin Grimm    reaperspamKILLspamsouthwest.com.au
> >
> >
>
> Hello Justin ,from a fellow Aussie
> My question is why basic? The PIC assembler is quite easy, and on top of
> that one could argue that C is an industry standard.
>
> Dennis
>
PTM: I'm for the Basic. It was originally to be a SIMPLE way to write code
for a person who doesn't want to learn high level programming. In the PC
world I have allways wondered why they didn't take Basic for the command
prompt language and to be used in the .BAT -files. They had the code
allready in the PC's PROM, so it would not be hard to do. There got to be
something wrong with IBM and Micro$oft.

In hardware programming Basic makes it fast to make simple systems. I have
myself written the programs first with PICBasic and then compiled
time and space -critical parts anew with ASM after they work in Basic.
This makes testing fast.
Sometimes I have not found any method to write faster code than PICBasic.

I'n not against C, I have used it myself very much, but writing user
interfaces and character string manipulatin is still easier with a good
basic (I wonder why they don't have QuickBasic any more for the PC)

PICBasic has been very effective system: code is tight and rather fast. It
is easy to optimise to assembler. It is even easy to comment and document.
What I would like to have is a PIC emulator (simulator ?) in PC so that I
have not to compile and move the code to PIC.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTM, .....pasi.mustalahtiKILLspamspam.....utu.fi, EraseMEptmustaspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTutu.fi, http://www.utu.fi/~ptmusta
Lab.ins. (mikrotuki) ATK-keskus/Mat.Luon.Tdk                    OH1HEK
Lab.engineer (PC support) Computer Center                       OI7234
Mail: Turun Yliopisto / Fysla, Vesilinnantie 5, 20014
Pt 02-3336669, FAX 02-3335632 (Pk 02-2387010, NMT 0400-555577)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1998\05\29@035155 by Dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
Hi there,
I used already its predecessor, the Pbasic. I purchased the PICBasicPro as
it came and I find it great (for the sake of truth, there are small bugs,
but I know only 2 at a moment and I can tell it in private [or - if there
is an interest - public] mail). It increases the developing cycle enormous
(I guess factor 10).

Imre

On Fri, 29 May 1998, Justin Grimm wrote:

> Hi all
> Does anyone have experience with the PbasicPRO compiler?
> Is it worth getting, and does it support all the functions of the
> PIC?
> Thanks
>
> Justin Grimm    reaperspamspam_OUTsouthwest.com.au
>
>

1998\05\29@043634 by Dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
On Fri, 29 May 1998, Dennis Plunkett wrote:

> At 01:33 PM 29/05/98 +0800, you wrote:
> >Hi all
> >Does anyone have experience with the PbasicPRO compiler?
> >Is it worth getting, and does it support all the functions of the
> >PIC?
> >Thanks
> >
> >Justin Grimm    @spam@reaperKILLspamspamsouthwest.com.au
> >
> >
>
> Hello Justin ,from a fellow Aussie
> My question is why basic? The PIC assembler is quite easy, and on top of
> that one could argue that C is an industry standard.
>
> Dennis
>
>
Hello,

why NOT Basic?

Arguments vs. assembler (I like assembler!):

- arithmetic very easy
- variable maintenance automatic
- lot of useful stuff you must otherwise program
 SERIN, SEROUT, SHIFTOUT, I2READ, I2WRITE, LCDOUT, etc.
- structured programming
- you can use assembler as integral part of the language wherever you want

I personally has studied the assembly code generated by the PICBasicPRO:
it is very tight so one does need to be afraid from overhead.

Disadvantages (maybe vs C):

- no dummy parameter for the procedures
- no local variables (i.e. all are global)

I'm satisfied with PICBasicPRO (after collecting some experience).

Imre

1998\05\29@054531 by Don McKenzie

flavicon
face
Dr. Imre Bartfai wrote:

snip---

> I'm satisfied with PICBasicPRO (after collecting some experience).
>
> Imre

BTW
I have a special price on Picbasic Pro ($50USD off) for Dontronics
customers that have purchased PicBasic standard. See:
http://www.dontronics.com/price_s.html
and
http://www.dontronics.com/pbpro.html

Don McKenzie  KILLspamdonKILLspamspamdontronics.com   http://www.dontronics.com

Don's Download Dungeon: http://www.dontronics.com/download.html
For more details, send a blank message to RemoveMEinfoTakeThisOuTspamdontronics.com
or spamBeGonesimstickspamBeGonespamdontronics.com or TakeThisOuTbasicsEraseMEspamspam_OUTdontronics.com

1998\05\29@092428 by Ocal TURKBEY

flavicon
face
Is there any hard or software lock of PIC BASIC PRO COMPILER?

Dr. Imre Bartfai wrote:

{Quote hidden}

1998\05\29@123844 by Charles Ward

picon face
In a message dated 5/29/98 2:08:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
reaperEraseMEspam.....SOUTHWEST.COM.AU writes:

<< Hi all
Does anyone have experience with the PbasicPRO compiler?
Is it worth getting, and does it support all the functions of the
PIC?
Thanks

Justin Grimm    EraseMEreaperspamsouthwest.com.au >>

Dear Justin,
    We are having great success with the PBasicPro setup. It pretty much
works as advertised, and makes development a dream. The best part from our
point of view is you can easily mix assembly code with basic. For example, in
a heart-rate monitor just completed, I did the messy stuff (convert
millisecond count into beats-per-minute) in basic with:

bpm = 60000 / ms

This lets the compiler do all the nasty 32-bit math, and lets you get on with
life! Also, it seems very efficient in generating compact code. You might
check that it supports your PIC of choice; we have been using the 16F84 so
far, but I am anxious to try the higher-end chips as well. Highly recommended!

Cheers,
Charles Ward
CWE, Inc.

1998\05\30@033405 by Matthias Granberry

flavicon
face
Pasi T Mustalahti <RemoveMEptmustaEraseMEspamEraseMEUTU.FI> writes:

> On Fri, 29 May 1998, Dennis Plunkett wrote:
>
> > At 01:33 PM 29/05/98 +0800, you wrote:
> > >Hi all
> > >Does anyone have experience with the PbasicPRO compiler?
> > >Is it worth getting, and does it su
> PTM: I'm for the Basic. It was originally to be a SIMPLE way to write code
> for a person who doesn't want to learn high level programming. In the PC
> world I have allways wondered why they didn't take Basic for the command
> prompt language and to be used in the .BAT -files. They had the code
> allready in the PC's PROM, so it would not be hard to do. There got to be
> something wrong with IBM and Micro$oft.
>

The ROM basic was not something that you could leave without rebooting.  It
also did not use ASCII character sets; it used a compacted 7-bit word and some
other things that made it easy to say ``that won't work for batch files.''

> I'n not against C, I have used it myself very much, but writing user
> interfaces and character string manipulatin is still easier with a good
> basic (I wonder why they don't have QuickBasic any more for the PC)
>
Not if you know C, imho.

--
Matthias Granberry
RemoveMEGonffspam_OUTspamKILLspamwindmillbbs.com
Caffeine, nicotine, and execution all serve as "normalizing agents".
  -- "Attention Deficit Disorder"

1998\05\30@050408 by Dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
Hi all,

there is only a legal "lock". Here follows quote from the Software
License:

... Licensee may not network the software or otherwise use it on more than
one computer terminal at the same time. Copies may only be made for
archival or backup purposes

[end of quote]

I think it is clear. Any violation of the terms and conditions is a CRIME
and will be prosecuted by the full extent of the law (at least in our
country). I think it is fair that somebody working hard to create a
program will be saved from piracy (what would you do if YOU were the
victim of a software piracy, i. e. you made a software and could sell it
only one copy). On the other hand, most software producents (except
Microsoft) can be entered into a fair bargain.

Regards,

Dr. Imre Bartfai


On Fri, 29 May 1998, Ocal TURKBEY wrote:

{Quote hidden}

1998\05\30@142812 by Michael Ghormley

flavicon
face
Justin Grimm wrote:

> Does anyone have experience with the PbasicPRO compiler?
> Is it worth getting, and does it support all the functions of the
> PIC?

My two pence:

I have found that MEL's products are functionaly OK, but that the people
working there have been less than helpful on more than one occasion.

They claimed that their assembler was "compatible" with MPASM, but after
repeated inquiries into problems compiling MPASM code (out of books, off
the net, etc.) I was told to just quit using their compiler (and
supposedly just quit bothering them) and use MPASM.  Not a great
recommendation for their product or their product support!  Their
documentation leaves a lot to be desired IMO and seems to be little more
than a tacked-on afterthought.

As an example of their lack of interest after they have my money, I wrote
to their tech support via E-mail on the 22 of May and as of this writting
have heard nothing back.  How would you feel if your project was stalled
and you had no reply from them for eight days (and counting)?

And this makes three unanswered E-mails to them at this time -- although,
to be fair, two were sent on the 22nd about the same problem and the
other was a non-critical inquiry.

They sell functional products at a low price, and perhaps don't have the
headroom to provide much support.  But in that case it should have been
made clear to the prospective buyer that they were buying a "vagrant
product" (no visible means of support).  My feeling is that, had I built
David Tait's excellent programmer for free, I would have gotten more
response from David then I am getting from MEL.

I, for one, will not buy anything else from them after these experiences,
and I cannot recommend that anyone else buy from them.

Just my two pence.  Your mileage may vary.

Michael

REMOVE THE .NS (NO SPAM) FROM MY ADDRESS TO REPLY
*************************************************************************When th
e way of the Tao is forgotten, kindness and ethics must be taught.
Men must learn to pretend to be wise and good.  --  Lao Tzu
*************************************************************************

1998\05\30@151727 by Alan King

picon face
Dr. Imre Bartfai wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> there is only a legal "lock". Here follows quote from the Software
> License:
>
> ... Licensee may not network the software or otherwise use it on more than
> one computer terminal at the same time. Copies may only be made for
> archival or backup purposes
>
> [end of quote]
 Not sure if this is what you were really talking about, since the
message you quoted didn't seem to have much to do with your new text..
 While most software does say something like this, it is pretty much
unenforcable on most software sales.  In several cases the courts have
ruled that you do own the software you buy and can modify it for your
own purposes.  Now an actual software LEASE (similar to leasing
equipment) may not be so lenient, but for the most part the courts have
been pretty much "if it looks like a sale of an item, it is a sale."

{Quote hidden}

1998\05\30@201507 by Max Toole

picon face
I have had very good results with the MELabs PicBasic Pro Compiler.  When I
called them to purchase it, I told them that I have a Parallax programmer and
asked if it would work or if I needed to purchase their programmer.  The guy
that I spoke with was very honest and told me that I didn't need to spend the
money to buy their programmer.  I have been using the PicBasic Pro software
with the Parallax programmer and I think it is great.  Maybe I'm not using
some of the functionality that others are.  I'll admit that I am not a
heavyweight programmer but, for my application, It has worked very well and I
recommend it.

Max Toole,
Electronic Innovations,Inc.


'PBasic PRO compiler'
1998\06\02@063651 by Dr. Imre Bartfai
flavicon
face
I have also Parallax programmer. I wrote a small program which inserts a
device record into the hex file generated by PicBasic Pro, so the Parallax
Programmer starts with a correct chip. If there is an interest, I could
send it for testing.

Imre


On Sat, 30 May 1998, Max Toole wrote:

{Quote hidden}

1998\06\02@082855 by Max Toole

picon face
Yes, I would very much like to recieve the program that you wrote for use with
the Parallax programmer.  Please send it to me at:

EraseMEelinnovspamspamspamBeGoneavana.net

Thank you,

Max

1998\06\03@004314 by Don McKenzie

flavicon
face
Dr. Imre Bartfai wrote:
>
> I have also Parallax programmer. I wrote a small program which inserts a
> device record into the hex file generated by PicBasic Pro, so the Parallax
> Programmer starts with a correct chip. If there is an interest, I could
> send it for testing.
>

If you want to send it to me Imre, I'll post it on my PRO page at:
http://www.dontronics.com/pbpro.html
and also post the feedback for the benefit of all Pro Users.

Don McKenzie  RemoveMEdonKILLspamspamdontronics.com   http://www.dontronics.com

Don's Download Dungeon: http://www.dontronics.com/download.html
For more details, send a blank message to infoSTOPspamspamspam_OUTdontronics.com
or spamBeGonesimstickSTOPspamspamEraseMEdontronics.com or KILLspambasicsspamBeGonespamdontronics.com

1998\06\08@224501 by peter

flavicon
face
Dr. Imre Bartfai wrote:
>
> Hi there,
> I used already its predecessor, the Pbasic. I purchased the PICBasicPro as
> it came and I find it great (for the sake of truth, there are small bugs,
> but I know only 2 at a moment and I can tell it in private [or - if there
> is an interest - public] mail).

I would like to know what bugs you've found
I have had problems with sleep,
also with pins ( I now ALWAYS use the full name ie: if portb.3=0
then.....)
and also a timing problem, out by a factor of five, (count, rctime or
pauseus I don't remember ) at 4mhz osc.


> I personally has studied the assembly code generated by the
> PICBasicPRO:
> it is very tight so one does need to be afraid from overhead.

I am not as happy as you are on this one
PBP eats up lots of ram (a big problem on 16c84's)
also PBP has lost a lot of it's automatic functions
that make stamp/pbc easy.

ie: I have just writen a test program to drive an LCD, I also have
buttons connected to the LCD data lines (two buttons at the moment
porta.2/3)
loop:
trisa.3=1
pause 5
if porta.3=0 then
lcdout "button depressed"
endif

result = strange characters on the display ?
fix    = set the trisa.3=0 before the lcdout
This should surely be set by the lcdout command !

And as for tight code, this test program has 11 lines
and outputs only 1 character to the LCD display. ( each character takes
2 words )
It compiles with PBP to 220 words or almost 1/4 of a 16f84 program
space.
22 Words per line ?


loop:
lcdout $fe, 1                        'clear display
trisa = 1                            'porta set as inputs
pause 5                              'wait 5ms
if porta.3 = 0 then                  'test button
trisa = 0                            'porta set as outputs
lcdout $fe, $c0                      'go to second line on lcd
lcdout "D"                           'down button pushed
pause 1000
endif
goto loop

Peter Cousens
email: EraseMEpeterspamEraseMEcousens.her.forthnet.gr  phone: + 3081 324450, 380534
snailmail:  Folia, Agia Fotini, Karteros, Heraklion  Crete, Greece.

1998\06\09@054342 by Dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face
Hi Peter,

to understand the code tightness you must take in account the following:

the Pic Basic (Pro) [I think also other compilers] has a high-level
statements, e. g. LCDOUT, LET, IF, etc. It means behind the statements
there are CALLed routines. If the compiler encounters a new statement type
(i. e. new in your program, it did not occur up to that point) the whole
stuff is linked to your program. If the program is relatively complex,
this necessary overhad seems to be huge. However, if a statement of
previous type occurs, only the calling sequence will be generated inline
(i. e. several words). With LET and arithmetical expression, it is a bit
more complicated. If the expression or a sub-expression can be evaluated
during compile-time, it will be without overhead. However, multiplication
and addition causes the appropriate routines to be linked. I use the
practice if I have only a single division (being done in runtime!) I try
to replace it with RLF/RRF statements, so the whole dividing stuff can be
eliminated.

The need of RAM is another thing. Of course, the routines need some
working space. I think it is normal. I suggest to drop 16C84 as it is
obsolete and has the famous security bug.

For the LCD problem: I'm a bit surprised why it is needed to use LCD data
lines also as input... You should know... but if you depress a button to
ground, how do you want to drive the same line?

And a tip: try to define all variables to be used. E. g.

Instead of

if porta.3 = 0 ...

write

butt VAR porta.3

if butt = 0 ...

I hope I could help you

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Peter Cousens wrote:

{Quote hidden}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1998 , 1999 only
- Today
- New search...