Apart from closing source of all the libraries (still do not understand why) mikroE compilers are pretty darn good. I paid mikroC 99E and it works on all 12/16/18 pic's. (they have separate compiler for dspic). I paid 110US$ for ccs c compiler and I can program only 12/16 pic's, for 18 family I have to 'upgrade' with another xyz$.comparing output of mikroC and ccs c for 16F877A, the mikroC code is better, the only thing is, I tend to.realy. dislike the part where.all. libraries are close source and to port ccs libraries to mikroC.I had no chance of testing the boostC but I already purchased 2 compilers, getting the third one to do the same thing does not sound smart, and as colin already stated, mikroE has some nifty tools in the ide.
The thing that 'it does not embed in mplab' does not concearn me, mikroE ide is better them mplab, ccs ide is better then mplab, 'visual' testing I can do in ISIS and as for programming and debugging - I have mikroE easypic4 so I can debug directly from mikroChero999, I agree with you 100%, I also opened the thread hoping to find link to foss app. The major problem that is in the way of foss compilers being 'close to good as some of.costly. ones' is from what I heard (from other gnu compiler developers) cost of the optimisation algorithms. There are people who know how to implement them, problem is, they are patented by various companies and not allowed to be used in foss env.
That's true, althoe, in europe you have pandam to sw patents called 'IP' that is pretty similar, and most of the algorithms are protected that way, but the main problem is 'why bother'. There are.many. pic/avr/rabbit/.
![Tech Tech](/uploads/1/2/5/4/125464467/871891445.jpg)
Compilers around, and they are 'fairly' cheep. MikroC is 100E per section (up to 18. and dsPIC) so for 200E you get full pic support, that is not much imho. For avr they have single solution for all of them that is 70E (not sure they have C, I think only pascal). There is the boostC, ccs, hitech and many others.
Disclaimer This page is not a recommendation to remove HI-TECH C Compiler for the PIC10/12/16 MCUs V9.82PL0 by HI-TECH Software from your computer, we are not saying that HI-TECH C Compiler for the PIC10/12/16 MCUs V9.82PL0 by HI-TECH Software is not a good application for your computer. HI-TECH C® FOR PIC10/12/16 USER’S GUIDE 2009 Microchip Technology Inc. DS51865A-page 5 Chapter 1. HI-TECH C Compiler for PIC10/12/16 MCUs 1.1 OVERVIEW This manual describes the usage and operation of the HI-TECH C Compiler for.
So what would be the reason the invest serious time and money to develop the compiler, then to play administrative games with, you can dl this, and you can dl that, waiting for the company X to sue you for liability.I work in foss world, that's my b&b. I push for linux app's where ever I can.
And to be honest, in the 'elco' world, that just do not cut it. As much as 'elco' engineers share code, share schematics, ideas. The developers of the 'elco' tools are 'crazy darn skico'.
I offered to one of the 'usb oscilloscope developers'.FREE. help to port the driver and application to linux, after 4 months I got answer that they are not interested in making drivers for linux for their device?!?!?! I asked nothing in return, I already purchased the device.So, when we look truth in the eye's, there's just too much hassle around it that is not related to development itself (administration, politics, birocracy) that I do not think we can expect foss pic C compiler soon.
Look at the mikroE, all libraries are close source?!?!? Do you see any reason for that?! What can we do about it. Check out the GCC, they also have only the optimizations they developed or that were 'given' to them by some 'nice' people. They 'could' do the same thing - one version for USA and another for the rest of the World, but - why bother. Those 10% perfomance is not worth it.anyhow.
I posted a pretty useless post now but feel much better afterwards.
![Compiler Compiler](http://hamlab.net/uploads/images/mcu/lesson_3/picc_install_03.jpg)
Apart from closing source of all the libraries (still do not understand why) mikroE compilers are pretty darn good. I paid mikroC 99E and it works on all 12/16/18 pic's. (they have separate compiler for dspic). I paid 110US$ for ccs c compiler and I can program only 12/16 pic's, for 18 family I have to 'upgrade' with another xyz$.comparing output of mikroC and ccs c for 16F877A, the mikroC code is better, the only thing is, I tend to.realy. dislike the part where.all. libraries are close source and to port ccs libraries to mikroC.I had no chance of testing the boostC but I already purchased 2 compilers, getting the third one to do the same thing does not sound smart, and as colin already stated, mikroE has some nifty tools in the ide.
The thing that 'it does not embed in mplab' does not concearn me, mikroE ide is better them mplab, ccs ide is better then mplab, 'visual' testing I can do in ISIS and as for programming and debugging - I have mikroE easypic4 so I can debug directly from mikroChero999, I agree with you 100%, I also opened the thread hoping to find link to foss app. The major problem that is in the way of foss compilers being 'close to good as some of.costly.
ones' is from what I heard (from other gnu compiler developers) cost of the optimisation algorithms. There are people who know how to implement them, problem is, they are patented by various companies and not allowed to be used in foss env. That's true, althoe, in europe you have pandam to sw patents called 'IP' that is pretty similar, and most of the algorithms are protected that way, but the main problem is 'why bother'. There are.many. pic/avr/rabbit/. Compilers around, and they are 'fairly' cheep. MikroC is 100E per section (up to 18.
and dsPIC) so for 200E you get full pic support, that is not much imho. For avr they have single solution for all of them that is 70E (not sure they have C, I think only pascal). There is the boostC, ccs, hitech and many others. So what would be the reason the invest serious time and money to develop the compiler, then to play administrative games with, you can dl this, and you can dl that, waiting for the company X to sue you for liability.I work in foss world, that's my b&b.
I push for linux app's where ever I can. And to be honest, in the 'elco' world, that just do not cut it. As much as 'elco' engineers share code, share schematics, ideas.
The developers of the 'elco' tools are 'crazy darn skico'. I offered to one of the 'usb oscilloscope developers'.FREE. help to port the driver and application to linux, after 4 months I got answer that they are not interested in making drivers for linux for their device?!?!?! I asked nothing in return, I already purchased the device.So, when we look truth in the eye's, there's just too much hassle around it that is not related to development itself (administration, politics, birocracy) that I do not think we can expect foss pic C compiler soon. Look at the mikroE, all libraries are close source?!?!? Do you see any reason for that?! What can we do about it.
Check out the GCC, they also have only the optimizations they developed or that were 'given' to them by some 'nice' people. They 'could' do the same thing - one version for USA and another for the rest of the World, but - why bother. Those 10% perfomance is not worth it.anyhow. I posted a pretty useless post now but feel much better afterwards.