Sonsivri

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 ;D

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

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...

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.

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

Hi,

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

See you,

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

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

hi-tech is better  ;)

Although buggy - I like CCS.

I like PICC but PICC18 has some problem.

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.

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.

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

This question is eternal.

The best compiler is the one you know how to use  :D

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!  ;D )


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.

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

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

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. ::)

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.

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

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...  :o
 - 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  ;D

See you,

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!


Very fine this one... Very fine ....  ;D ;D ;D

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

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.

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

I agree with the fact that HITEC does very good and very nice C compilers. They do only C compilers and they do them very well.
But compared to C18, Hitec compiler is
- very Expensive,
- and has no libraries (C18 has LCD/I2C/SPI/MW/OW/..../SOFT I2C/SOFT SPI/...) for hardware management :(

Regards
Bluex

I have used CCS, HI-Tech, MikroC and MicroChip C, and I find they all have their good and bad points.
In the end I think it all comes down to the individual using it, and sometimes the code they are working on as to which is the best.

The best compiler is ccs c compiler if you want flexible c codes (buil-in functions, by using stream multiple serial ports, hw/sw i2c,...), on the other side there is no guaranty that current bugs will be fixed in the next version, or new bugs will not be introduced while fixing the existing bugs or adding new features to the compiler.

One of the best solution may be to modify the opensource driver codes for all compiler version, and use them with any compiler you like.

At the moment I am using CCS C Compiler and if spare some time I will try to use C18 and move to C18 permanently.

HI,
C18 is the best compiler.

Best regards
Milan 

Hi,

I agree with mmladenovic. MPLAB C18/C30 is the best, especially if you
are using ICD2.

Ok C18 is good. what can be use if you want to write code for pic12 , pic16 ,pic24 series.must we buy and learn another compiler for all series which same producer mcu's? ha?  ??? ::)

1- I prefer to pass time to learn another compiler instead of using a buggy one
2- Why stick with 12 and 16xx series when 18Fxx series is cheaper and by far better  (more ram, more rom, more speed, better architecture, same pinout).

Regards

MikroC, 100% recommend.... The Best

Yes, I started with CCS , I feel it easy and faster (small code) because i don't expert in C. I will try for Hitech with big code. that is mind.  :D

Hi-TechC is for me, the best compiler. Not include functions and drivers, but the code is highly optimized in size of final HEX file.

Its up to you.

Why don't you address such a question to Microchip ? To me, the small the application the smallest the controller. Did you ever see 18Fxx in 6 or 8-pin version ?   

How many 8 pin 10Fxxx series can you seriously program using a HLL such as CCS ??? these pics are done only for ASM programming. Even if you use CCS for doing a button debounce, u can do that with ASM in some few lines of asm...

I like the int24 math in CC5x and bytecraft mpc compilers. But they are not very attractive for the user interface and device wizard.

I use CCS sometimes and I consider good and reliable.

All of them was excellence,but I was used c30 for a long time.^^

 ;) ccs very good

I think, all compilers are good, but CCS have many interesting tools that make the best...

I am newbie, HI-TechC is too hard for me. I use CCS.
Picfan

i m using ccs by years.i made a lot of commercial  project (big and small) with ccs picc . Sometimes i tried to use other compilers,(hi-tech, microchip ,iar ,fored wizc, microelectronica etc..) but i never realized a small project all of these compilers.i had a problem every trying and i returned to ccsc.why?any idea for this stuations. ??? :(

HI: friend .can you upload the download link .include path file.thank you.

The merit of CCS is its abundant function for doing simple projects. But the worst part in CCS is the ambiguities in the documentation, when a user try to program some thing not in common place.

hi-tech or ccs or others are not the programs just 2 ppl sit down wrote thm,thr are big thy are huge. so i dont think it is a good idea to discuss which is best. with ccs and hi-tech it is like talkin about same thing in 2 different ways.my recomendation is to start with one of thm and stick with it, and whn u become a pro on one of those u wont have major problems with writin a code with another c program.

I experiment with MikroC and think that is good for hobby use. Hi-TechC is complicated for me.

 I use a CCS , but i a learning a C18 this is a ANSI

                           Orcino

I like CCS, because a lot of library and example, so we can use it easily. For compiler comparation,  you can see this link...
http://www.ccsinfo.com/content.php?page=newcompilercomp

I have used C18, PICC, and CCS quite extensively.  I actually prefer CCS despite it's non-ANSI syntax.  It is extremely easy to get up and running and there is more of a C like feel than C18 and PICC.  PICC and C18 seem like ASM macros to me!

It depends upon the avaliablity of Information on each compiler

imho CCS (not PCD) is the best for fast start programming,
now I have to use C18 compiler but I like CCS, it's "more user friedly" I think...

i'm using mikroc.it has got wide library.i used hi-tech previously,but it is hard for beginning.

PICC from CCS rules.

i think that CCS is so wonderful for beginner

I always use de IAR Compiler, es very clean, but it don´t support all micros ;(

Begin with MickoC, very easy program in studying!  :)

i use mikroc i havnt had a problem so far.

microc very useful.

CC5x create code with very good optimization, easy integration with MPLAB or other free editor tools.

Hi,i think mplab y ccs c are the best

Hello,
i use C30, C18, HT but now i use MikroC. C18 and C30 are very good but they have not clear documentation. bye ;)   

I agree with raham, but i prefer hitech :)

CCS is my choice(version 4.058)

Hi,
With MikroC there are many already ready bookcases and in more the compatibility with the C is maintained. The various CCS has BUG experiments to you son arrived to version 4,20 and has changed. MickroC works well and answers perfectly to the requirements. If they need other bookcases they can create or copy from other compilers.
To fine the compilers son nearly all bonds but on blot some to 8-bit see them waste to you. I only use them in order to implement complex functions like those logical mathematics or. For the rest I go in Assembler. Language C I see more to it adapted for machine which 16-32-bit PIC24-dsPIC30-dsPIC33 type and new model PIC32 or ARM acrchitecture. For these structures it nearly needs completely a language to high level.
For the PIC18 already the speech changes. The PIC18 is a machine with more complex structure and difficultly the more complex management of the stack and the PC regarding the PIC16 can be managed from a assembler in how much is structures type, therefore one language C is one optimal solution.
At the moment language C that it supports of the BEES in order to manage a RTOS is the CCS but many of the RTOS in Internet supply already these bookcases. as an example the PICOS18 is one of these. For the PIC18 the C18 is written in C using.
Now the speech is divided in 2: if you must manage the machine directly or if you must manage it through a RTOS. Based on these considerations you see which he is compiler C more adapted ;)
Gone and programmed... ;) most possible...  8)

Posted on: January 29, 2008, 01:47:47 13:47 - Automerged

---

In order to render account you of what I have said visited care RTOS the address = http://www.picos18.com/ . I have not still tried this several RTOS but it seems good and full of Driver for peripheral the ready ones to be it uses you. Bye  ;)

I personally have used CCS for all projects, basic and commercial alike. Only problem are the bugs and the many revisions which are hard on each others' heels. I currently find a challenge with CCS when I have multiple interupt handling like I2C, RS232 on Uart and external interupts on B0 taking place concurrently. Not sure if this compiler limitation or just my programming skills, but I have tried many options.

i use ccs c

I like MikroC because MMC library!
Very easy to beginner!

I have used HT-PIC PICC - it was stable. But PICC18 makes a lot of problem to me - too many bugs, I have to check a lot of old versions before I found correct one.

 :) to fast learning, ccs is the better. I use it to teach pic.

I like C. is it not important which kind of use to compiler editor? They have many different superiority for them. But all compiler's language type is C.

Having tried all the of the compilers mention in the topic, I find CCS by far the best (aside from some annoying bugs). The generated hex is MUCH smaller than what HI-TECHs packages can do, and the seamless integration into MPLAB allows me to keep using my ICD2 without purchasing additional hardware.

I just wish CCS would abandon their attempts to create a gui (version 4 is pretty ugly), and just make the compiler an Eclipse plugin. This way the linux version could have a gui, and moreover they could port it to mac too!

What are users experiences here with the command line linux CCS compiler? good .. bad?

I use CCS 3.x and it is good enough for my simple applications. I think that it is good for a beginner and a lot of functions are directly available like rs232.

Hi, i tested MikroC and is very good and more cheap.

what about optimization and code genration?
I think MPLAB C is very good whatever mikroC more friendly

I used CC5X C and Hi-Tech C They're similar to ANSI C...

Posted on: February 17, 2008, 07:36:09 19:36 - Automerged

---

CCS C seems very useful has got many libraries but too different from ANSI C... and urges to memorize commands... but graph lcd libraries, ds memories, etc. makes its using necessary

MikroC because its easy to use and nice interface for beginner

ccs for me, simple & quick to use

CCS C is really a great tool.. they also have have a wonderful forum site in www.ccsinfo.com/forum to help you if you encounter some problems..

Dear all,
Do you have the CD key for MPLAB C18 if have let me know.
Thank

CD key?

You don't need one, just check here...

http://www.sonsivri.com/forum/index.php?topic=2374.0

I am using CCS PCWHD 4.068 to program PIC24. However I lost already a lot of time to find and correct for bugs in the compiler. I could not get the RTC working, The interrupt failed etc. However for the PIC 18 and PIC 16 it works OK.
By the way I am looking urgently for an upgrade to this compiler...
I compared efficiency against assembly for a PIC 16F689 and programmed the same software in assembly and in C. The version in C was about 35% larger than the assembly language version. (4K in C against 3K in assembly)
I have no experience with other compilers, but my rule is for processors smaller than 4K, use assembly.

Actually, a software written by CCS C cost more sapce of PIC than Compilers from Microchip. But CCS and Mikro C is more easy in than C18, C30.
Some experts advised me to learn C18, C30 for an efficient software.
I have the similar problem than ronbreukers with RTC  when using C languagle, but I can reslove it with MPLAB ASM.

In conclusion: In my opinion, CCS C and MikroC are both easy in use and very suitable for newbies or simply applications
MPLAP C would serve better but more difficult to use

By the time that I have used CCS it have a lot of bugs... new releases every week... but, there are a lot of embeded functions, good for the starting users.

Now I use Hi-Tech PICC, it is a full ANSI C compiler... almost bug free... so it's my professional choice.

the Best compiler is MPASM from microchip  ;D

Yes, MPASM is excellent, but is not a C or any other kind of compiler. MPASM stands for Microchip Assembler.

when i need power im use  it with MikroC im write asm{ my code } 

I use ccs but all complier usefull

compile code size ?

I like CCS.It's easy.

When you consider which compiler is the best?
Maybe, you should ask whether that compiler can produce debug code for MPLAB,
so that you can debug programs inside MPLAB by using ICD or ReadIce. (affordable debuggers)

Secondly, check whether the compiler you choose provide enough libraries to ease the
common hardware problems.  MikroC is one of the best provides her own libraries to let
you to connect to RS232, CAN, MMC and ethernet etc.  You don't need to
search the useful libraries around, or write them from scratch.

No matter which compiler you choose, try hard and put some time to get familiar with that compiler,
then you may become one of the best engineer at the later time. ;D ;D ;D

I am new too.
Because nobady could teach me, so I went to Microchip RTC to learn.
I use MPLAB C18 , but freeware is best...

I also think that the answer depends on which compliler one started on.
I started on CCS and it has proved more than adequate for my needs. I sometimes look at hi-tech and mikroc to learn a thing or two from their examples.

ccs,mikroc provides many built in libraries to control different types of peripherals

i think all of them are good.
The most important thing is ...Do you have friends who knew PIC C language.
When u have problems u can ask them.
If u can't find anyone to ask, try to find some things at microchip website.
I also prefer C18 , because u can find source code, application notes, C user guide, a lot things at there.
My friend uses MikroC. He say MikroC has a lot of lib,easy to use...etc.
So, up to u.

you are new user so you can use CCS C or Mikro C. i think for profesional project you must use PICC18 or HI-Tech,IAR.

Hi guys,

I'm the one that started this thread, hihi.

My first PIC compiler is CCS, this is the compile that provide many "encapsulate" function (mean you only knew how to call that function, but you cannot modify/access to the function).

After that in my new company, i start to use the Hi-Tech compiler. Everything from the register setting to function have start writen from scratch.

Then i realized something, it maybe easier to startup using CCS, however it is quit dangerous since we don't know how the build-in function is written. When there is a fault, we will be in a confusion state asking is that built-in function that cause the bug & we unable to check this.

So basically what my advise is..., for the beginner, if time isn't the constraint, use Hitech or C18...it may take longer time to master it, but it is worth.

Above is just my opinion

MPLAB ir very original no bug and no limitation that's professional comppiler I strongly recomend you to use that

I have used MPLAB c18 and Hitech pro pic 16, but as my experience MPLAB C18 is stable and more optimizer.
HItech is more unstable from one to next patch level update are giving very big difference after size of compiled code.

Therefore observing all issues MPLAB compilers are better choice.

ccs very good

Hi all,
That question sound to me like: "Which food is the best?" :) well, the common answear is ... depends on many things. If you are new in programming pics with C, I can advice you to start with CCS, then when you begin to find it "hard to deal with" move to microchip's compilers if you use 18F and above series, else move to HiTech.
Regards

Well, I have the  privilege to have used some C compilers mikroC and CCS C are good for beginners like me. I find microchip C18 unattractive and think it's difficult to learn (because I hadn't looked into it). I prefer mikroC to CCS C for the ease of LCD implementation.

Which ever you use often will definitely be your best.   

i have leave Mikroe vs Xc
i have buy original Mikroc and mikropro programmer
mikroprogrammer give always a lot of error
in the last is impossible to program 12F1840.
I have try program it with realice of mikrochip and go as a dream
Xc is little more complicated, but is the best investment

mikroC to me is not giving me troubles yet, maybe some built in libs using more space than expected, but, it's my fault to be lazy sometimes...  i don't have the mikroprogrammer , i have my cheapo pickit3 clone and is working good , so i use mois of the time mikroC,  anyway, XC is the standard goodie for my serious stuff,

I think if you are totally newbie the best compromise is CCS it very similar to C ansi and for me has a good compiler.
This it was my experience...

I don't believe we are still having pissing contests, the best is the one you can use or spend time learning.

I am a licensed user of MikroC and I can say as a compiler it is worth its salt. It comes with precompiled libraries which means you can't modify them or learn from them. You can just study the provided examples. This is of course  a serious limitation however that being said if you have the skill and knowledge you can always write your own libraries. IDE is a bit quirky, takes a long time to load, may behave differently from one OS to another. Once it is loaded however, it compiles code in a snap. It is not intended to be compatible with Proteus. On numerious occassions what worked in real hardware did not work in the simulator. It is especially so if software SPI etc is used.

CCS uses lots of macros to do hardware settings etc. I find that uninspiring. They say it is a good compiler but I haven't tried it extensively.
 

After reading this topic I am still not sure which one is the best and easy for beginners.
I am starting with CCS and it looks nice IDE, at least straight forward to install and run with !
Thank you.

u'r still young :- )

try 'em all and decide for urself..

Most, if not all, compilers have time-limited and/or feature-limited trial versions available. Some compilers require an email or message to get a trial key, but that's not a big deal. It's worthwhile to get the trial versions and play around with them before committing to purchase.

You may want to avoid downloading and installing all trials at once, since it will take a bit of time to get to know each particular compiler; therefore, make a list of compilers that you're interested in just go down the list as you try them out. Some trials expire based on the date of download, whereas others may expire based on installation date.

Also, don't forget to visit the company forums for each particular compiler, since you can get an idea of what kinds of issues you may run into with that compiler, and you can also see how quickly the company responds to bug fixes and feature requests.

In addition to bug, when you are a newbie if the compiler has a huge community driven forum you can garnish a TON of tricks, work arounds and basic source code to build upon...  While on the flip side if you are new and the compiler has no or a small user community you could be left learning mostly from trial, error or hoping their manuals are well written...

I switched from MPLAB to MPLABX when it came out and found it a revelation. I work daily in Android Studio, Visual Studio and MPLABX and find them all excellent. MPLABX being NetBeans is right up there with the others.  I waited to try XC8 until recently and after getting my head around what was needed to convert my code from C18 I found it very good.
The strangest things can cause it to crash however it offers good warnings. The thing is to not try too much at once so you can have a better idea of where problems arise.
Compared to C18 it is as if you are woking in a higher level compiler, not like C# but it does take care of a lot of details for you.
For example the automatic placement of variable is great, no more rom const just const. Also not having to manage the linker is very nice, its all automatic.
Code reduction is quite a bit better, I converted 10 projects and all showed improvement.
Another bonus it the automatic saving of variable when going into and out of interrupts. All projects showed an improvement in the time to get in and out.
All in all I feel I have moved ahead in making the switch.
What I found the most strange was that missing a header file include is often enough to crash the compiler without warning. Also yesterday I wanted to check something so I had a while(1){NOP()} to stop things just after getting into main and that also crashed the compiler.
I first tried coding in the CCI mode but found the constraints were making conversion from C18 too difficult.

I can't say which is the best out of all the compilers mentioned so far but I can say that moving to XC8 is well worth it.
Regards,
John.

In my opinion the existence of multiple platforms to choose from is essentially good. One drawback however is having to master a new set of rules which should become obsolete in a matter of a few years. Presently, I code in MikroC and do the PC side in Visual Studio and C#. A friend of mine works with Delphi and works on the AVR platform. For any two users like us information exchange is minimal. Although we are doing similar things our worlds are alien to each other and we generally have no time to learn about from each other's experience. I already find Visual C# a sharp enough a deviation from my routine PIC coding experience.

I would prefer a microcontroller compiler to work as a module of one of the existing universal standard PC development environments. That is to say the IDE should ideally be the same. I also would like to remember the same rules for each environment. Presently there is no compiler doing that.



Posted on: September 30, 2014, 10:24:02 10:24 - Automerged

---

You may find me conservative but our world is a world of rules, methods and processes. Taking too much liberation is rarely good. That is why we still use those 8 bit processors sticking to the same topology as 30 years ago.

I think, CCS is better with MPLAB Plug-ins and PICKIT 3 ;) is good for PIC12 PIC16 PIC18 with another family have some bugs

I'm pretty sure this thread should be renamed to "I want to increase my post count"

(which I've just done myself I suppose...)

:) pissing contest is first thought...

Posted on: November 18, 2014, 01:52:13 01:52 - Automerged

---

opps I said this in the past...

i never tried to "piss" with IAR-ewb for pic... any one of us did?

What is this: an Inquisition Court?

For the longest time I've abandoned Hi-Tech C due to an old bug it had where the compiler had broken switch statements. It took me countless hours to find out that the compiled code was incorrect and I ragequit on H-T C. With microchip taking over and replacing C18 for XC8 I've started using the rebrand much to my satisfaction. I really like XC8 now, especially for PIC18 devices. My biggest problem with it now is indirect addressing on PIC16F.

Compiles to only 22 instructions (in pro mode)!! On PIC18 it's just 5. Other than that I'm actually quite satisfied.

I've used CSS before but found it really dumb. Code like
just feels like glorified BASIC. Then again, built-in niceties just like these helped supernoob me to get some stuff working at least.