PIC Basic Programming
 

Any of you who are interested programming PICs with a Basic compiler might
want to take a look at this site:
http://www.oshonsoft.com/

This is a complete Pic Basic Integrated Development Environment (IDE) with
some very nice simulation tools included. Time-limited demo version is free.
Registered version is only $19! Competitive products sell for many hundreds
and aren't nearly as complete.

Joe
W3JDR

W3JDR wrote:
Any of you who are interested programming PICs with a Basic compiler might
want to take a look at this site:
http://www.oshonsoft.com/

This is a complete Pic Basic Integrated Development Environment (IDE) with
some very nice simulation tools included. Time-limited demo version is free.
Registered version is only $19! Competitive products sell for many hundreds
and aren't nearly as complete.

I've recently started using the WinAVR toolkit, which
consists of GCC ported to the AVR family, a very
comprehensive avr-libc implementation, and all of
the associated Gnu-based build tools. It's really
quite snazzy and it's the price that hams love: free.

I did spend $80 for the Atmel STK500 programmer kit from
Digi-Key, but that's all I needed.

Overall, the AVR port of GCC seems excellent, really excellent.

Dana K6JQ

W3JDR wrote:
Any of you who are interested programming PICs with a Basic compiler might
want to take a look at this site:
http://www.oshonsoft.com/

This is a complete Pic Basic Integrated Development Environment (IDE) with
some very nice simulation tools included. Time-limited demo version is free.
Registered version is only $19! Competitive products sell for many hundreds
and aren't nearly as complete.

I've recently started using the WinAVR toolkit, which
consists of GCC ported to the AVR family, a very
comprehensive avr-libc implementation, and all of
the associated Gnu-based build tools. It's really
quite snazzy and it's the price that hams love: free.

I did spend $80 for the Atmel STK500 programmer kit from
Digi-Key, but that's all I needed.

Overall, the AVR port of GCC seems excellent, really excellent.

Dana K6JQ

I feel the AVR instruction set is superior to the PIC. It's a much easier
instruction set to program for in assembly, and it is designed with C in
mind. This means that the AVR will run the same thing faster, and with less
code space. If it were an engineer asking I would recommend that the AVR be
given precidence. If you must have BASIC, or if you must have some
peripheral that's available on the PIC that's not available on the AVR, then
that's the way you'll need to go.

Otherwise learn C and use an AVR.

"Dana Myers" wrote in message news:40030ebf$1@wobble...
W3JDR wrote:
Any of you who are interested programming PICs with a Basic compiler
might
want to take a look at this site:
http://www.oshonsoft.com/

This is a complete Pic Basic Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
with
some very nice simulation tools included. Time-limited demo version is
free.
Registered version is only $19! Competitive products sell for many
hundreds
and aren't nearly as complete.

I've recently started using the WinAVR toolkit, which
consists of GCC ported to the AVR family, a very
comprehensive avr-libc implementation, and all of
the associated Gnu-based build tools. It's really
quite snazzy and it's the price that hams love: free.

I did spend $80 for the Atmel STK500 programmer kit from
Digi-Key, but that's all I needed.

Overall, the AVR port of GCC seems excellent, really excellent.

Dana K6JQ

I feel the AVR instruction set is superior to the PIC. It's a much easier
instruction set to program for in assembly, and it is designed with C in
mind. This means that the AVR will run the same thing faster, and with less
code space. If it were an engineer asking I would recommend that the AVR be
given precidence. If you must have BASIC, or if you must have some
peripheral that's available on the PIC that's not available on the AVR, then
that's the way you'll need to go.

Otherwise learn C and use an AVR.

"Dana Myers" wrote in message news:40030ebf$1@wobble...
W3JDR wrote:
Any of you who are interested programming PICs with a Basic compiler
might
want to take a look at this site:
http://www.oshonsoft.com/

This is a complete Pic Basic Integrated Development Environment (IDE)
with
some very nice simulation tools included. Time-limited demo version is
free.
Registered version is only $19! Competitive products sell for many
hundreds
and aren't nearly as complete.

I've recently started using the WinAVR toolkit, which
consists of GCC ported to the AVR family, a very
comprehensive avr-libc implementation, and all of
the associated Gnu-based build tools. It's really
quite snazzy and it's the price that hams love: free.

I did spend $80 for the Atmel STK500 programmer kit from
Digi-Key, but that's all I needed.

Overall, the AVR port of GCC seems excellent, really excellent.

Dana K6JQ

Tim Wescott wrote:

I feel the AVR instruction set is superior to the PIC. It's a much easier
instruction set to program for in assembly, and it is designed with C in
mind. This means that the AVR will run the same thing faster, and with less
code space. If it were an engineer asking I would recommend that the AVR be
given precidence. If you must have BASIC, or if you must have some
peripheral that's available on the PIC that's not available on the AVR, then
that's the way you'll need to go.

I really wasn't trying to say "AVR is better than PIC", I was just
pointing out an alternative that's totally free (and open-source).

Otherwise learn C and use an AVR.

But, I must say, I totally agree with you. I'm
quite pleased with the AVR-GCC port and avr-libc.
Sure, if you insist on using the full floating-point
printf, it's like 5k for "hello world", but even that's
not bad really.

Dana K6JQ

Tim Wescott wrote:

I feel the AVR instruction set is superior to the PIC. It's a much easier
instruction set to program for in assembly, and it is designed with C in
mind. This means that the AVR will run the same thing faster, and with less
code space. If it were an engineer asking I would recommend that the AVR be
given precidence. If you must have BASIC, or if you must have some
peripheral that's available on the PIC that's not available on the AVR, then
that's the way you'll need to go.

I really wasn't trying to say "AVR is better than PIC", I was just
pointing out an alternative that's totally free (and open-source).

Otherwise learn C and use an AVR.

But, I must say, I totally agree with you. I'm
quite pleased with the AVR-GCC port and avr-libc.
Sure, if you insist on using the full floating-point
printf, it's like 5k for "hello world", but even that's
not bad really.

Dana K6JQ