Jump to content


Photo

Comparison Between Boostc And Ccs Compiler


3 replies to this topic

#1 eric-odessit

eric-odessit

    Newbrie

  • EstablishedMember
  • 5 posts

Posted 29 June 2010 - 11:30 PM

Hello,
I am considering recommending BoostC to my co-workers and looking for information of comparison between BoostC and CCS compiler in terms of reliability and optimization. Is there anybody who used both and can comment on this?
Thanks,
Eric.

#2 PaulHolland

PaulHolland

    Regular

  • EstablishedMember
  • Pip
  • 24 posts

Posted 12 January 2011 - 06:36 PM

Hello,
I am considering recommending BoostC to my co-workers and looking for information of comparison between BoostC and CCS compiler in terms of reliability and optimization. Is there anybody who used both and can comment on this?
Thanks,
Eric.


Hi, I used both compilers and can tell some differences.

1: CCS is bringing out a software update almost every month, not to increase features but fix bug's
2: CCS does use its own non-standard kind-of C language. Not to improve but since they do not know how to build a REAL compiler. Most non-standard features are done since its not easy to make a ANSI C compiler for a PIC platform I think Dave can acknowledge this :-).
The problem with the non standard C language is that porting your code is difficult. and this will lock you in with CCS if you build a large code base.
3: CCS: The kind-of C language is adjusted and modified during the years when they did hit a rock solid wall and had to change their modification. The downside of this is that old code will not compile with a new compiler version unless you change code.
4: I noticed many bugs in the compiler unless you used some strange command or trick to undo them.
5: reasonable code generation but waisting RAM resources.
6: Not superfast code, and even contains dead code.
7: They try to do clever but its actually a way of hiding they do not know how to make a real compiler. One example is that re-entrance code is if written is not allowed and suppressed by the compiler without it telling you anything or even giving you the option to allow it. Example: If you have a function your calling in your main and the same function you call in an interrupt routine the compiler will automatically disable all interrupts during the function call in your main routine !!.. This is very stupid since your code can be written in a way that will not be harmful at all (using local declared variables instead of global). You only get a warning which you will ignore as always and your not able to disable this behavior of the compiler. You have: Local variables, Global variables but also static variables, CCS is seeing no difference between : static, local and global variables. Initializing local and static variables sometimes simply does not work even though the C code is perfect.

Sourceboost:

1: Although not ANSI C its close enough to make a port an easy job.
2: Stable code and very few bug's.
3: Very compact code and use of RAM resources
4: Smart compiler and dead code removal although I suggested some improvements :-)
5: Very good priced for the quality.
6: PIC12F code generation is impressive since this is almost impossible with CCS in an efficient way.

I am not connected to sourceboost is any way other that having one license for sourcboost C compiler !.
When I used CCS i had more the feeling I was installing and keeping my compiler up to date and checking the forum for bug reports than building software. I also used some bad language a lot of times when I used CCS since it was not possible to write code or doing things I did not ask :-).

CCS is nice for building somthing for a demo and you do not have a lot of time to write software since they offer lots and lost of functions and examples online.

regards,

Paul.

Edited by PaulHolland, 12 January 2011 - 06:53 PM.


#3 Sparky1039

Sparky1039

    Regular

  • EstablishedMember
  • Pip
  • 36 posts
  • Location:Colorado USA

Posted 18 January 2011 - 06:32 PM

What should also be mentioned too is that SourceBoost C has one of the most robust *.cof implementations that is fully supported by Labcenter's Proteus VSM simulation tool. This was the major clincher in my decision to purchase a SB-C license. After several months and 3 major projects SB-C has yet to let me down. Like Paul said this compiler forces you to write proper code vs. offering lots of silly libraries to the lazy code writer.

In comparison CCS-C is a steaming pile of... :lol:

#4 eric-odessit

eric-odessit

    Newbrie

  • EstablishedMember
  • 5 posts

Posted 06 May 2011 - 11:26 PM

What should also be mentioned too is that SourceBoost C has one of the most robust *.cof implementations that is fully supported by Labcenter's Proteus VSM simulation tool. This was the major clincher in my decision to purchase a SB-C license. After several months and 3 major projects SB-C has yet to let me down. Like Paul said this compiler forces you to write proper code vs. offering lots of silly libraries to the lazy code writer.

In comparison CCS-C is a steaming pile of... :lol:


Guys,
Thanks for the info. Is there anybody who can comment on comparison with Hi-Tech?
Thanks,
Eric.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users