BASIC to PIC

[Lenp]

Over the years I've learned to do some programming with the Parallax line and now want to migrate to PIC's. I want as short a learning curve as possible since it is not a life long need!

Preferrably, some of my previous designs could be ported with mnimal rewrites to a comparable PIC. I'm old school, BS1C and the BS2 are where the designs live now!

All opinions and thoughts appreciated and considered.

Thanks gang,
Len

[MrAl]

Hi there,

There is PIC basic, but you have to buy it.

I use Assembler as it comes free with the Microchip software.
It's also nice to know what each instruction is doing as assembler
is closest to the hardware.

[bodgy]

You could look at XCSB basic, it is a structured basic and therefore becomes but a short step to 'C' if you ever felt like it.

Colin

[Lenp]

OK, now there are two options, PIC Basic and XCSB basic.
Are there advantages /disadvantages to either(disregarding the cost)?
Which of the two is the closest to the PBasic I've been using.
Do either run like PBasic, program/load/run all in the same setting or are they more involved.
Can I still program test and debug in PBasic then load it to a PIC?
And kastly, what PIC's are a matchup to the Parallax line?

Whew, this is a tall order, so thanks in advance!

Len

[philba]

well, I don't recommend basic for serious work but look into mikrobasic - http://www.mikroelektronika.co.yu/
there is a free version, I believe. I get a not-found error when I follow their compiler link but that's probably temporary.

[bodgy]

OK, now there are two options, PIC Basic and XCSB basic.
Are there advantages /disadvantages to either(disregarding the cost)?
Which of the two is the closest to the PBasic I've been using.

Pic Basic will be closer to PBasic at is it an interpreted basic.

Do either run like PBasic, program/load/run all in the same setting or are they more involved.

If you mean from within an IDE, then Pic Basic has its' own IDE, XCSB is meant to be used with a text editor - but can be used with the JALcc IDE. It compiles to a hex file ready for downloading, but as it is IDE'less has no debugging facility.Can I still program test and debug in PBasic then load it to a PIC?

And kastly, what PIC's are a matchup to the Parallax line?

All 16F pics can be coded with Pic Basic to my knowledge.

Have a look on my website for XCSB code - you'll see it is very close to 'C' in structure.


Colin

[MrAl]

Hi again,

I think i understand why you want to get a language as close to
your old language as you can get, but also keep in mind that
'assembler' for the PIC is not like assembler for a computer.
There are only 35 instructions to learn in order to program a PIC
chip in 'assembler'. It's worth learning even if you use some sort
of basic too.
I can also tell you that program translation takes some work when
translating a program from one language to another. There are
idiosyncrasies for both langauges which must be clearly understood
in all but the simplest programs before a given program will run entirely
error free in the new langauge unless someone takes the time to
write a good translator.

When it comes to the PC though, I currently program in several
languages and the only one i would want to give up entirely is BASIC
<chuckle>. I guess for the PIC it's different though

[philba]

al, we sure do agree on Basic.

However, I don't think pic asm is that different from more sophisticated computers' assembly language. The concepts are largely similar. In fact, for newbies, I think it's actually harder because of banking, paging, skip conditionals and so on.

[Lenp]

Hey guys ... thanks.

Now that this thread seems to have slowed down some I'll sit back and consider the opinions before I proceed. I've been stuck on basic since forever and maybe this trick pony needs a few new acts!

Thanks for the info and views...

Len

[cwaugs]

If you're going to buy, wouldn't buy anything else but PicBasic or PicBasicPro from Melabs. Hands down the best support forum by far! Well worth the money. Stay away from Mbasic. Not Good!

[Lenp]

cwaugs

No difference of opinion here, but, why do you feel PicBasic it is the best? There are so many options I am just trying to separate the wheat from the chaff!

The real issue I have is porting from the pBbasic platform to a PIC. I have several products that were developed some time ago with pBasic and am going to resurrect them for commercial use. I need to cut costs by changing the processor and really do not want to spend too much time on code rewrite especially not being sure of the product future.

A new design, from ground up, would be a different story.

Thanks for your input

Len

[cwaugs]

The support is by far the best I've ever experienced. I'm sure you could go to the forum and get the info. (if any change is needed) because pic and stamp goes back and forth fairly easily. Try the demo, it will probably do what you need. (stamp brains are smaller?) HTH cwaugs

[MrAl]

Hi again,

Philba, yeah the banking is strange huh? ha ha.
I see why they did it though, to keep the instruction bit size low.
Still, using 16 bits instead of 14 would mean a larger area of
memory could be accessed with one instruction. For some reason
they wanted to keep the size of these 'mid range' chips to 14 bits.

[philba]

I suspect the reason for banking and paging is compatibility when they were forced by customer demand to go past the architecture limits. They could have changed the instruction set and thus forced people to change their code to move to the newer chips. By preserving the compatibility, they made it easy to move up but made larger programs harder to write.

[MrAl]

Hi again,

Yes that's true, but it's hard to believe that in this day and age
of programming with high level languages we have to bank switch
manually.
I still like these chips however, and will continue to use them because
they really can do jobs that are really hard to do in pure analog or
using discreet digital chips.