CCS, HI-TechC, MikroC , MPLAB C.....Which C Compiler is the BEST???

[chyun3]

Hello....
Since I new here , I wonder which C Compiler is most widely used and work the best...
Pls stated out the Compiler u r using and its' advantage and disadvantage

[tavioman]

There is a lot of compare of various PIC C Compiler on this site. Please use search..

[tavioman]

BTW, I'm using CCS v3.249. It's easy to use and works OK.
If you want a professional C Compiler you should use Hi-Tech C or IAR. They are full ANSI compliant but that also mean that you don't have any MCU Specific functions. You should build your own.
In CCS C there are many PIC specific functions, like:
set_timer(), set_pwm_duty, etc...

[raham]

use of ease and with many driver libraries i prefer the ccs as best and if your project is a comercial industry standard product i prefer hitech and if it is for pic18 and dspic i prefer mplabc because it from their own product microchip. :)Use ccs for basic,easy, & quick projects.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Hmm, funny question. You might use a search feature on this forum...

[Cesar]

Hi,

Tavioman is right IAR is professional, and CCS is for quick, simple and no compromise...
I never tried HiTech.....

See you,

[nolortonman]

Hi tech... some users said its a repeated question..

[mitsos]

Hi
in this topic we concern only for Microchip PICs
as regards the language: C is still the best as the most engineers agree
so from the available C compilers
the "winner" for the most pics 12Fxxx,16Fxxx
is the one from Hitech, I consult to download the others compilers for this reason--> to steal a possibly smart idea from the included examples
IAR has powerful compilers but support very little types from the above series

as regards the 18Fxxx,and 30Fxxx (and other dsPIC types)
the first tools that you must think to try -and are "free"- are the two Microchip compilers
next it is worthing to try the Hitech and IAR tools

regards
mitsos

and if you talking next for AVR families
IAR compiler is possibly the best

[aj49m]

hi-tech is better 

[darksky]

Although buggy - I like CCS.

[meo_udon]

I like PICC but PICC18 has some problem.

[Tre]

I've done many large projects in both CCS and HiTech.  I personally prefer CCS because it's very easy to get going with the built-in functions.  HiTech, as mentioned before, is an ANSI compiler so it doesn't have any built-in features specifically for the PIC like CCS does.  I'd give it a try, I doubt you'll regret it.

[Tre]

Sorry, forgot to mention, I would stick with a 3.xxx version until the kinks all get worked out of 4.xxx.  They are using their customers as beta testers so don't be so quick to upgrade, unless you specifically need something from a new version.

[digitalmg]

As a hobby use CCS or MikroC,for profesional project PICC18 or HI-Tech,IAR

[mcr]

This question is eternal.

The best compiler is the one you know how to use 

I'm starting to pass from PBP to CCS and it's starting from scratch. Why CCS? Because it has many functions, and if you know pic architecture and assambler, one shouldn't have a problem with it (I hope!  )


If you don't know C (like me) use CCS, if you know C, use MPLAB C18 or 30.


Cannot provide with anything more because those are the only ones that I've tried.

[alex]

I did tried CCS, IAR and official microchip C18 and C30. I must agree that CCS is most user friendly with a lot of C files for support but on the other side you get better (smaller) code with either two. So you should try each and then decide which one is right for you.
                                                                  Alex

[bluex]

CCS is the best
Microchip official compiler(C18) is bad

Why is C18 from Microchip bad ? because it's not commercial ? because it's free (in its student edition)?
It does all what we can excpect from a very good compiler. It has a set of nice libs and is updated regularly. First versions had bugs but it's getting corrected in each version and it integrates nicely under mpLab.
Even in its first version it was better ans more stable than the actual CCS compiler!
Why do to think it's bad? because it has not a special lib for comm with 24C16 ? do the effort to learn I2C and you'll communicate with any 24Cxx using C18 I2C or Software I2C lib that are provided. The same can be said for SPI or MW memories, or SPI/I2C sensors (temp, Dallas iButton, ....) the libs of C18 are very well done. It has all the set of tool we need for proefessionnal developments like a linker (that does work unlike CCS one), a librarian,... and it's able to generate retargetable code.
The best compiler is the compiler you know very well. C18 is like any other compiler, with its drawbacks and its set of bugs (very few in last versions, so few that a hobbyst will never see them). CCS instead has 10022929383838 lib that does nothing. Libs that use its I2C lib to communicate with an I2C device. I can not call that libs. I call them Samples or Examples, and most of them are so badly written. The compiler itself has 9989329938747477 bug and the linker is inexistant. The existing one is not even in alpha stage. The librarian is inexistant. The dev environment is ugly. The compiler is not case sensitive. Really all bad things we can find in a compiler.

Compare the set of corrected and discovered bugs in each version of C18 and the huge list of CCS!
I can give you quicly a set of sources that shows bugs in CCS. How many body in this forum can give me at least 2 or three examples thats shows bugs in C18?

Regards

[iso]

why C18 or iar  hasnt got bugs?Becuse hasnt any spesific fonctions.is there any bug C fonctions of CCS  compiler .And CCS always anonce every single bugs of their compilers.They always developed compilers and fix bugs.if we use mcu, a compiler must include mcu fonctions.If doesnt include This case it is called low level compiler like asambler.if you would not write a program, you dont any error.if ccs wn'nt include spesific functions be sure it will be less bugy then iar or hi-tech.

[naoib]

I start with C2C but now I prefer CCS (3.249) because it's very easy to get going with the example, built-in functions and ICD is easy to use with high speed (U40) and real cheap to buy or very simple to make (clone). Some time isn't very confortable to control new hardware, if applications work all is ok but is not easy to understand what is happen if the applications don't work. In this situation built-in functions is not our friend.

[bluex]

why C18 or iar  hasnt got bugs?Becuse hasnt any spesific fonctions.is there any bug C fonctions of CCS  compiler .And CCS always anonce every single bugs of their compilers.They always developed compilers and fix bugs.if we use mcu, a compiler must include mcu fonctions.If doesnt include This case it is called low level compiler like asambler.if you would not write a program, you dont any error.if ccs wn'nt include spesific functions be sure it will be less bugy then iar or hi-tech.

No Iso, sorry but when I speak about bugs it's not samples (mis-named drivers by CCS) bugs, these are not bugs for me. I speak about bugs in the compiler core itself. Bugs in floating point support, in pointers arithmetic, in negating signed numbers, in reading/writing EEprom code space (because of pointer arithmetic), bugs in elementary core functions for a C compiler like malloc, bus in functions call from other functions ... all these are stupid ugly bugs .. nothing related to samples and examples.
C18 has also some bugs, but not as much as CCS. I never seen a compiler as buggy as CCS one.

Regards

[Cesar]

Why is C18 from Microchip bad ? because it's not commercial ? because it's free (in its student edition)?
It does all what we can excpect from a very good compiler. It has a set of nice libs and is updated regularly. First versions had bugs but it's getting corrected in each version and it integrates nicely under mpLab.
Even in its first version it was better ans more stable than the actual CCS compiler!

I Agree with BlueX in some points.
 - C18 from Microchip works fine, but I just use version 2.2 or later, a lot of people says that was very bad in the lower versions... 
 - Any PIC compiler can work fine under MPLab (I used IAR, CCS, CC5X and C18), just require some patient.
 - Any C compiler for microchip PIC is better them CCS 

See you,

[bluex]

I Agree with BlueX in some points.
 - C18 from Microchip works fine, but I just use version 2.2 or later, a lot of people says that was very bad in the lower versions... 

I also never used version before 2.0. But from this version and until version 3.x it's really becoming very very well. And all bugs I know (that most users encounters) are really bugs related to very advanced features and in really very special conditions... not in standard additions and function call, or in memory allocation ... or worse, in pointer arithmetic, when we know that C is really done for that kind of purpose!

- Any C compiler for microchip PIC is better them CCS 

Very fine this one... Very fine .... 

[gsosa2000]

I not agree with BlueX,  I use the c18 and it´s better that ccs...
 

[kmiha]

I used both CCS, HI-Tech, Mplab C18.

CCs is good for beginers in C.
HI-Tech and C18 are for professionals that wants to have the control.
C18 also co-operates with visual initializer of MPLAB.

[paulosa]

 ;)HITECH
PICC18-PRO V9.61, this is more power!.