Attached is a list of the PICs supported by PicBasic Pro Silver Edition. I plan to buy PBP3 Silver and would like some recommendations from the list of supported PICs to buy for learning and experimentation purposes. I already have the following which are supported by PBP3 Silver: 12F629, 16F684, 16F628A, and 16F690. I would like to get about five more variants to use with PBP3 Silver.

Thanks.

 

The supported MCUs list was somewhat on thin side I would say.

 

The supported MCUs list was somewhat on thin side I would say.

Yes. They obviously want to "sell up" to the Gold Edition. The Silver is about $120 and the Gold is about $270, but one can upgrade from Gold to Silver for $150, so there's no real penalty for starting with Silver.

 

You can ignore the ones with C in the middle of the name, they are only programmable once.
12F615/17 are fairly useful, the 12F683 is similar
16F819 is pretty good
16F883/4/6/7 are handy if you need a lot of pins

 

I would have to ask what you would gain in buying a compiler over using on of the free ones from Microchip?

If the reason is to use Basic over C then you have made your case.

 

I would have to ask what you would gain in buying a compiler over using on of the free ones from Microchip?

If the reason is to use Basic over C then you have made your case.

Well, I haven't bought PBP3 yet, but I have the 15 day free trial going on.

I do have some experience with PICAXE programming which uses a variant of basic, and given that C looks completely unintelligible to me, and given that programming will never be my vocation, I think basic may be the right choice. PBP3 seems to be one of the best, if not the best basic for PIC programming.

I guess there is some "status" or "mystique" with C that basic doesn't have, but after the program is compiled, does it really matter what compiler was used?

Oh, I have some projects that are currently being controlled by PICAXE MCU's that I want to convert to PICs. At least one of them has commercial potential, and I want to minimize the cost.

 

I'm not one to choose a compiler based upon "status" or "mystique" and I have been quite happy working in Basic for years. My real choice for jumping the fence and using C for embedded over Basic was the free for the download compilers Microchip offers.

Basic makes more sense as you start programming as well it should, it was developed toward that exact purpose.

The difference in languages is of far less of consequence then the programmer who writes in either. If you know Basic better then C then your programs written in Basic will be better then your programs written in C.

And damn anyone who speaks disparagingly about our humble Basic.

 

Whatever language gets the job done properly is the right solution.

I once wrote a "mystify" screensaver in BASIC - fairly simple to do,
and a Pacman and Lunar Lander in Fortran.

I did a baseball field positions roster in APL. I don't think any other language would have made it easier.

And a Sudoku solver in Matlab.

Yes, you can call me a computer polyglot.

 

What is the programmer that you are using? Does it support in circuit debugging, and does picbasic?
If you are looking at a commercial application, then time spent witha debugger could save time scrutinising code.
That said, some of those chips (16f84 for eg.) do not support debugging.

 

Check with your component dealer(s). If you easy can get your hands on the PICs in the supported PICs list. And the price will not set you back more than you can handle. Just do it. The most important thing is that you as the user feel comfortable.

I guess there is some "status" or "mystique" with C that basic doesn't have, but after the program is compiled, does it really matter what compiler was used?

It is not any "status" with C. But I think C is more used as programming language than Basic. And hence a C compiler will have broader market than a Basic compiler. After program is compiled. The level of code optimization my have something to say for speed and code size. Back in the days then PIC16F84A only had 1K word as program memory. Optimization could be important. But now PICs do have plenty of program memory. So for the hobbyist this is most often not a problem at all

 

What is the programmer that you are using? Does it support in circuit debugging, and does picbasic?
If you are looking at a commercial application, then time spent witha debugger could save time scrutinising code.
That said, some of those chips (16f84 for eg.) do not support debugging.

Debugging is important. If you have a programmer that support in circuit debugging also. It could be tempting to drop the 16F series. And move to the 18F series. As almost all 18F PICs have debugging logic embedded in the chip. Not all PICs in the 16F series have this. Some PICs in the 16F series will support what is named a debug header. You can read more about it here http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/51292T.pdf

 

What is the programmer that you are using?

I have a PICkit 2.

 

C compilers can be used almost like assembler if you really wanted to.
In BASIC this is not possible as easy as in C.

And I don't mean inline assembler.

If you know the addressing modes of the MCU, and use the right C syntax, your code won't be so much different from assembler.

BASIC originally was interpreted.

I use it too for Windows

For PICs, I use 16f884 because I have stockpile of them remaining, otherwise 18F, and the new extended midrange (16f1824/16f1503).

In the past, I used 16f54/1657 in assembler.

Older PIC product lines no longer interesting in favour of 18F.

Recently I programmed a 16f676 from 2004, a disgrace to configure, 1K memory only that is not much for C language.