Looking for impartial comparisons

[amanda]

Looking for impartial comparisons

Anyone who has used Hi-Tech and CCS compiler and would be willing to answer a few questions. You can email me: amanda@ccsinfo.com.

Thanks and I will be willing to give some free items to anyone that will help!

[asmallri]

If you want the comparison because you are making a purchasing decision then you should be aware that Microchip recently acquired HiTech. Microchip already have their own compilers and obviously some rationalization will need to take place. You might want to hold off purchasing the Microchip or HiTech Compilers until you know which is the product that will be supported in the future.
_________________
Regards, Andrew

http://www.brushelectronics.com/software
Home of Ethernet, SD card and Encrypted Serial Bootloaders for PICs!!

[languer]

Somehow I do not think she is making a purchasing decision. After all, I think she works for CCS.

This appears to be an honest attempt for true customer feedback. I think this is very good for CCS. Please feed your comparisons (unbiased). I cannot see any downside to this request (and you may get some freebies ).

[asmallri]

[asmboy]

i'm afraid my reply is a bit partial -

i was forced to take up a project that had been started by a client - that was not working right at all- and it was coded with HITECH-c

i found that the HITECH C doc was pi** poor - tech support indifferent - and the general attitude exhibited - best described as snarky.

and scatterd thruout the doc were reference to the Z80 - the Z180 and other MCU's that had nothing to do with the PIC family ..
and diddly for smooth access to PIC family hardware features, much beyond Flash memory. For the big $$ tag - surprisingly minimalistic in PIC specific functions too.

Very lame serial I/O in particular, especially compared to the CCS products( as i found later) .

i briefly made the WORSE yet mistake of trying out Boost-C - as a low cost way to make a fresh start of the project. That was AS BAD a mistake
as i have ever made. Just as kloogey as I've ever seen.
WHAT a minimal compiler!!!

Finally i worked a bit with the free demo of CCS PICC ( just command line ) - and was DELIGHTED - yea overjoyed - at the rich PIC specific support functions I found. And the pricing was for sure favorable too - especially with the excellent intrinsics provided as part of the package.

And the rest is history. THANK YOU CCS - and keep up the good work.

[n-squared]

Amanda, It is nice to hear from somebody from CCS.
I have been using the CCS compiler since version 2.xx.
I have tried both Microchip and Hi-tech compilers. I can't complain about the code they produce but, as stated above, they have no meaningful libraries to help handle all the peripherals.
I keep running into compiler bugs with PCH and PCD. Newer versions of the compilers have newer bugs. It's almost as if this is intentional. Something weird has happened since V4.080. CCS has changed all sorts of things and any project I compile with these latest versions does NOT WORK! I am still using V4.079 even though I download and try out every new version as it becomes available.
Why would newer versions of device header files omit A/D input pin definitions? Point in case: compare 18f86j11.h files.

I use CCS exclusively, but sometimes I spend many hours looking for workarounds.
I am supposed to renew my support contract in a few days. I don't know...

Best regards,
Noam
_________________
Every solution has a problem.

[amanda]

I appreciate the feedback! I will email each of you directly within the next few days. n-squared- I passed the compiler issues you are having to tech support, so you should be hearing from them soon.

Thanks
Amanda

[Ttelmah]

The biggest problem with CCS, is their attitude to releasing new code.
The basic compiler, is probably the easiest to write things for the PIC, of any. You can generate a program, in a few minutes, that produces runnable code.
However, they habitually release new compilers, that supposedly fix particular bugs, which themselves have loads more problems. The old advice here, was to treat 'new' CCS releases as no better than 'beta' releases. Even worse, a lot of the programmers time, seems to be aimed at the 'frills' (the IDE), not at getting the compiler to work well. Most 'old hands' here, probably don't use the IDE at all (run in MPLAB instead), because it really isn't that good.
The compiler, despite the update to V4 a while ago, shows signs of not having been improved much at the 'core' level, for a long time. The extended PIC18 instructions have been ignored. Interrupt handling is very poorly optimised, and quite a few other features do not match the quality from other compilers. Despite this all though, you can write 'mainline' code, quickly and easily, and if you know what you are doing 'under the hood', optimise the inefficiencies away yourself.

Best Wishes

[n-squared]

Ttelmah,
I agree with you. The compiler definitely makes life easy, if you don't hit one or more of the miriad bugs in the compiler.
I have a project with the PIC18F67J60, where adding ONE EXTRA printf statement, when the code is only 15% of total memory, which causes the MPLAB to dislike the COFF file.
Now what do I do?
BTW, the PCW IDE does load the COFF file and allows debugging, BUT THAT BRINGS ME TO THE MOOT POINT OF NOT BEING ABLE TO CHANGE A VARIABLE MANUALLY DURING DEBUGGING.
I have another product with the PIC18F87J11, which worked well with V4.079 , but with V4.080 and up will not even compile because of changes in the device header file.
The PCD insists on producing SOFTWARE UARTs for the PIC24FJ128GA110, which has FOUR built-in UARTs.
The list goes on and on.

I really hate being such a cry baby.
_________________
Every solution has a problem.

[bsturm]

I agree about the CCS IDE, who needs it? MPLAB works well and it is free, how can you compete with that? I also agree that the CCS has very nice libraries and example code that save a lot of time. That is why I chose PCM over the free HT compiler. I started with the free HT compiler, but my project was behind schedule. PCM was worth the extra money for the time I save on I2C alone. Maybe CCS should focus on their strengths, lose the IDE and focus on the libraries and example code. A bundle of all the command line compilers for a special price would be compelling also.

And please get the PCD compiler right, I hear lots of complaints about it. The 16 bit chips are starting to look tempting. I am looking at Microchip compilers again, it would be a pain to switch from CCS to Microchip compilers for different projects.

[Guest]