Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
basic stamp communication over radio | Digital | |||
basic stamp communication over radio | Digital | |||
Reference for basic antenna theory | Antenna | |||
SheerPower 4GL -- Beyond BASIC V3.4 | Equipment | |||
SheerPower 4GL -- Beyond BASIC V3.4 | Equipment |