Best compiler's for PIC

[Nigel Goodwin]

If you are serious about PIC programming, you should learn Asembly of the Procesor first. Only then you will understand what is happenning in the PIC. After you know asembly you can move to high level programming. Atleast I think this is the best way how to learn PICs...

Yes, I totally agree, you can't use a high level language effectively on a PIC without a reasonable knowledge of assembler and the low level working of the chip.

 

[Agent 009]

I think one should also know the specific assembly of the current processor, not just any assembly...

 

[Jay.slovak]

I think one should also know the specific assembly of the current processor, not just any assembly...

Ofcourse! x86 asembly is useless with PICs!!!
We were talking about Asembly for specific PIC!

 

[Agent 009]

Isn't there any "translator" from one platform 2 the other?

 

[Jay.slovak]

Isn't there any "translator" from one platform 2 the other?

I have never heard of such program. Its imposible to efectively perform transformation beteween low level languages...
That's why High level languages were developed, to help transport programs to different platforms.

 

[upand_at_them]

Re: reply

So there is books for assembly for beginner's based around the PIC right

Yes, and I posted one in my last reply.

Mike

 

[samcheetah]

i agree with everyone above in that you should learn assembly language if you want to efficiently program PICs. by programming in assembly you know about your hardware and its flexibility and limitations. and generally C and Basic compilers will produce code that is greater than assembly code (for the same task). although high level languages are inefficient in terms of the code they produce, they simplify the programming process.

and as for the question about assembly translator well even if there exist some program i would never use it. the reason is that assembly is very much platform dependent and an x86 and a PIC are greatly different in architechture and organization. so if you want to program in x86, learn x86 assembly. and if you want to program PICs then learn its assembly.

 

[Jay.slovak]

i agree with everyone above in that you should learn assembly language if you want to efficiently program PICs. by programming in assembly you know about your hardware and its flexibility and limitations. and generally C and Basic compilers will produce code that is greater than assembly code (for the same task). although high level languages are inefficient in terms of the code they produce, they simplify the programming process.

and as for the question about assembly translator well even if there exist some program i would never use it. the reason is that assembly is very much platform dependent and an x86 and a PIC are greatly different in architechture and organization. so if you want to program in x86, learn x86 assembly. and if you want to program PICs then learn its assembly.

Nice summary!

 

[Roboticinfo]

reply

So assembly is the hardest out of basic,and c?

 

[Jay.slovak]

Re: reply

So assembly is the hardest out of basic,and c?

Yes, but it's the most used.

 

[Roboticinfo]

reply

So how long do you think
it would take for a person that know's only basic to switch to assembly.

Do you think it would take a month or less if I went through the books and messed with it abit.

I know it depend's on the person but what is your opinion?

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Re: reply

So how long do you think
it would take for a person that know's only basic to switch to assembly.

Do you think it would take a month or less if I went through the books and messed with it abit.

I know it depend's on the person but what is your opinion?

You should be able to do something useful in a couple of days, bear in mind there are only 35 instructions in the 16F PIC series - and a number of those you rarely use!.

 

[Roboticinfo]

reply

Only a couple of day's

Are you sure?

 

[Roboticinfo]

reply

How long did it take for you Nigel to fully understand assembly?

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Re: reply

How long did it take for you Nigel to fully understand assembly?

I don't claim to 'fully' understand it, but I did 6502 assembler (many years ago), so PIC assembler is fairly easy to learn. The thing to do is start simple, and work up - that's what my tutorials are designed to do, give you simple working examples that you can then modify and improve.

You can learn a great deal by flashing LED's :lol:

I can't remember how long I've been doing PIC's?, but the first version of PicProg I wrote was for DOS, when the only EEPROM PIC was the 16C84. The DOS version (written using Turbo Pascal) evolved into the Windows version, and was renamed WinPicProg, the first versions were 16 bit only for Windows 3.1!. This was also the worlds first Windows PIC programmer, as far as I know! - I've never seen one that predates it!, all the MicroChip stuff was still DOS back then.

 

[Roboticinfo]

reply

So you know how to program all the PIC's

right :?:

 

[Jay.slovak]

Re: reply

So you know how to program all the PIC's

right :?:

Yes, considering that he writes tutorials for PICs :lol:
Anyways all PICs are very simmilar.

 

[Roboticinfo]

reply

True but some have special function's

 

[Jay.slovak]

Basicaly if you know one PIC, there is no problem to learn new PICs "special" peripheral. It's not that hard to open Datasheet and figure out how to set it up... I started with 16F84 and now I'm using 18F PICs and I advanced only by reading it's datasheet !

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Re: reply

True but some have special function's

Most of the 'special functions' are simply extra hardware, the datasheet explain how to use them.

Mostly I've used 16 mid-range series PIC's, with a little 12 low-range series, I've yet to get around to playing with the 18 high-end series.