I don't think OP is looking to convert Basic into C, I think OP is asking if there is a C programming environment for PICAXE.Why would anyone convert Basic into "C"?........ speed?
Well maybe, although the author of the video has a poor grasp of basic sums. The examples given that a basic compiler was "3 times, well almost" than an Arduino (C\C++) program. It was actually 2.43 times faster so a little more than two times faster.Great Cow Basic compiles pic and avr to hex which is faster than arduino c, https://sourceforge.net/p/gcbasic/blog/2017/04/youtube-chuck-compares-arduino-and-great-cow-basic/
You hit the nail on the head with that statement Sir..However its been said many times on here that how fast a proram runs is often not a significant issue, its ease of use and simplified development that predominates.
millisecond timing.etalWhy would anyone convert Basic into "C"?........ speed?
Second that on the PICAXE support community. If learning C you can also expect to meet some rude ones on the Arduino forum - I sure did - met some helpful folks there also - most of them from AUS......................
I will say, the PICAXE support community is unmatched out there...when you go on the Microchip forum and ask a question, you'd better gird yourself for some rude (and unhelpful) answers...but again, it forces you to get into the datasheets, and see what makes these chips (and even the PICAXE) tick!
I find GCB to be very easy to use. Their forum is almost as helpful as this one is too. I've converted a number of programs from PicAxe Basic to GCB, some very simple ones, others rather more complex ones with 2-3000 lines of source code.Well maybe, although the author of the video has a poor grasp of basic sums. The examples given that a basic compiler was "3 times, well almost" than an Arduino (C\C++) program. It was actually 2.43 times faster so a little more than two times faster.
However its been said many times on here that how fast a program runs is often not a significant issue, its ease of use and simplified development that predominates.
Great Cow Basic does initially sound attractive, its free, a complier so it should be fast, but easy to use ? Well not in my experience. I decided to try and do a complied version of a simple watchdog program I had for a 08M2 (12F1840). I eventually got it working, but it was a struggle and only after I corrected an error in the Great Cow Basic .dat file that was the definition for the particular PIC. Beginners stuff it was not.
Yes, it is said quite a bit and is generally true ,especially for beginner level educational and hobby projects....However its been said many times on here that how fast a program runs is often not a significant issue, its ease of use and simplified development that predominates.
To me that makes no sense. The syntax differences and changing say the picaxe servo command to a timer1 uno or pic interrupt is not trivial so not like re writing the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy in 34 languages. Why not just test it in gcb...with a £3 uno off ebay...not a pic and make a dev board and in circuit programmer . uno usb is so nice from gcb. you un rem a batch file and say which com portI find GCB to be very easy to use. Their forum is almost as helpful as this one is too. I've converted a number of programs from PicAxe Basic to GCB, some very simple ones, others rather more complex ones with 2-3000 lines of source code.
Where there are errors, I think there was an error I found in the .DAT files for the 16F1825/9, a post on the forum will get this checked and corrected if needed.
Not forgetting that GCB is produced by volunteers, for no charge and with no restrictions on use, commercial or otherwise.
For certain repetitive operations, the speed increase between PicAxe Basic and GCB (compiled) Basic can be enormous. If you need that speed then GCB is a good choice, if you don't then PicAxe Basic is the way to go. I sometimes develop an idea using a 20M2, build a prototype, code it and make sure it works. I then plug in a 16F1829 and convert the code to GCB. That way I get the idea working quickly using the speed of the PicAxe development before taking advantage of the speed increase of the base PIC.
+1While PicAxe basic doesn't have the .h include files directly, they are there to a degree, just hidden
...
The PicAxe simulator is too good...