mikroC PRO for PIC or Necto Studio for PIC18 MCU ?

[cpservicespb]

What is efficient, flexible, powerful, with more supporting/providing functions, generated more efficient code for firmware development for PIC 8bit/16bit ?
And where is better usability ?

[paulfjujo]

hello,


MikroC Pro is usefull for 18F PIC
except for new generation as serie 18FxxQ10 ...
MikroC Pro 7.60 is more easy to use than the big amount of code for MPLABX MCC XC8
but you must have to pay a licence > 250€
MikroC is not maintained anymore,
replaced by Necto Studio .. but same big Software as MPlab XC8 !
and cost !!!

In the past, MPlab C18 was jut fine , an easy, confortable software ... for PIC18F
.. but now, declared as obsolete.. except for old PIC as 18F252 ...
it is why i bought a MikroC licence ..

Now for 18F47Q10 , i am obliged to use MPLABX XC8 .. free software , but slower et more complicated than MikroC..
I don't want to use Necto Studio ..also to heavy software .. too much MCU are handle ..and MikroE board oriented.

for me, it is just for Hobby or little project ...
for professional job, it is another choice ...

in summary : no more simple software for PIC18F only..
since AVR joined Microchip

"Pourquoi faire simple , quand on peut faire compliqué !"

[janni]

MikroC Pro is usefull for 18F PIC
except for new generation as serie 18FxxQ10 ...

Actually, PRO compiler for PIC works well with the Q10 processors but, since mE stopped working on PRO compilers years ago, one has to write the definition files by oneself. It's the other Qxx processors with RAM access bank moved higher that the PRO compiler cannot manage.

"Pourquoi faire simple , quand on peut faire compliqué !"

Well, Necto is in principle simpler, with less features, just using it a lot less convenient than PRO IDE.

[janni]

What is efficient, flexible, powerful, with more supporting/providing functions, generated more efficient code for firmware development for PIC 8bit/16bit ?

As for compiler efficiency, both the PRO and AI compilers produce similar final code. The AI compiler may work with newer PIC processors, tough there is only symbolic number of definition files at the moment and simulator doesn't work correctly with newer processors that have differently coded assembly instructions (like Q43 & Q41). Libraries in PRO and in Necto are the same but the latter does not make their use easy.

And where is better usability ?

That's where the differences are really visible. Due to intentional generalization of the IDE, Necto is far behind the PRO IDE in features and usability. As I mentioned, use of libraries is harder - functions are not visible in Library Manager and thus obviously cannot be simply dragged to the edit window or double clicked to invoke Help. There are no hints about function parameters, like in PRO IDE and library functions' names aren't even included in Help index (Help, by the way, won't work without internet connection).

Necto lacks features known from PRO IDE, like Statistics, Watch Clock, RAM window, EEPROM editor, ASCII char map, or Tool icons. There are no View options and thus toolbars or useful icon shortcuts, like code navigation, code block commenting or indenting ones. There's even no current line and column indication in code editor, no easily visible indication of processor or clock used in project. Code Explorer is hardly useful without alphabetic organisation and lack of the option of jump to code location.

Processor configuration in Necto is based on 'setups' (practically a board definition, including processor package - like one of mE's hardware boards). To switch to another processor, even from the same family one has to go through several steps of setup. Even change of processor clock or single configuration parameter requires going through the whole process of again choosing compiler settings and processor.

Finally, Necto, after three years since its presentation still undergoes frequent changes and still has some quirks that make work with it really inconvenient. For example, opened files are not remembered in next session and switching between projects is harrowing (one has to close residual files from previous project and reopen - one by one - ones needed in current project). Source files once added to Project explorer cannot be removed (and every one is regarded as main and separately compiled in the latest Necto versions). As files not included in Project explorer are not saved before compilation, one has to do that manually.

All in all, Necto may be 'The IDEal way of coding' for somebody who just wants to see one of mE's hardware boards started quickly, but certainly not for firmware development. Maybe in a few years, when developers finish adding new processor types and SDKs and and have time to start working on making the IDE practical...