Great Cow BASIC Icon

User Ratings

ease 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 5 / 5
features 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 4 / 5
design 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 4 / 5
support 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5 5 / 5
Write a Review

User Reviews

  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Simply fabulous. I have been programming since the days of the ZX80 and ZX81, using a variety of programming languages. To list but a few: Sinclair Basic, OPL {Psion} [Organiser Programming Language], COBOL, [Early] Visual Basic, QBasic, Turbo Pascal and Delphi [Pascal for Windows]. Delphi is the language I worked with the most, and the one I enjoyed the most. All of the above have a syntax that is 'Basic' like. I've worked in C, and whilst I can read it, I don't enjoy it that much. When looking into Microprocessor programming for my own personal use, I saw PIC processors but was put off using them as I initially thought they could only be programmed using assembler or an expensive compiler. I tried to learn assembler programming, but could not make any sense of it whatsoever and gave up. Some years later, I discovered the mBed platform and bought myself an mBed board. I programmed this to create a clock for myself which told the time using a single LED that flashes out the time automatically every five minutes in a sequence of hours, tens of minutes, units of minutes. I then looked at some other projects but was put off by the cost of incorporating an mBed board in each device. I then discovered the superb PicAxe devices. These are modified PIC processors running a custom interpreter that allows the program to be written in [PicAxe] Basic then uploaded to the processor using a very simple serial interface. The PicAxe devices require no complex motherboards nor do they have convoluted power requirements they simply need connecting up correctly and programming. Done. I used many different PicAxe devices to build many projects, both for myself and the further education college I worked for. One downside of the PicAxe devices is that the cost of the processors is a little higher than the PIC processors they are based on. For single builds of a piece of equipment this isn't an issue given the speed of development they offer, but for my newer job where we might need to make a few hundred units, the PIC devices become far more competitive in price. Also the interpreter on the PicAxe device causes the code to be executed slower than the code generated by Great Cow Basic then loaded into the equivalent PIC. Great Cow Basic offers the ability to continue using a programming language I'm familiar with, to program PIC processors. I use a GQ-4X programmer for some of the Eprom devices we use and this can program the PIC devices with the code generated from Great Cow Basic. I currently tend to build and program any prototype units with PicAxe processors, then having ironed out any issues with the design I transfer over to the equivalent PIC device, with Great Cow Basic. There are a few minor annoyances with Great Cow Basic, but the majority of those annoyances are that whilst PicAxe Basic and Great Cow Basic are dialects of Basic, they are different and I'm often caught out by the subtleties of the languages.The fact that one language requires the end of an 'If' statement to use the token 'EndIf' and the other to use 'End If' is caught by the pre-processor. But I still find myself wondering why something doesn't work as planned only to find I've Defined a variable as being called 'A_Variable' but later in the code accidentally referenced it as 'A_Variabl'. This doesn't cause the pre-processor to complain, it silently creates a second variable 'A_Variabl' which of course has a different value to the original. Yet given how breathtakingly good Great Cow Basic is, I feel it is extremely churlish to be so rude as to point this type of thing out. The writers of Great Cow Basic should be proud of their achievements, it is a collection of programs that work wonderfully well and I want to thank all involved for their generosity, enthusiasm and the sheer quality of them.

    Posted 03/02/2016
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    just ok, some improvements in the editor, in memory management, string manipulating and the timer routines needed, but anyway just ok to fullfill most of my expectations

    Posted 01/29/2016
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Very good, Great programming language, easy to learn. You can do almost everything in a very simple way!

    Posted 10/06/2015
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    coming from pic's using interpreted basic to GCB has opened up more possibilities whilst still letting me continue to code in a language i had learnt to use as a newbie a few years ago. definately a great alternative if like me you have never used or just cant get comfortable with using mplab in C# or ASM. im pretty sure i will be sticking with this for my projects and needs for a long time to come.

    Posted 07/18/2015
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Great programming language, easy to learn. Came here from another similar but commercial language ( you know which one :P ) and I found GCBasic to be the perfect alternative. It has a friendly community and with some minor additions, the potential to beat the big names in the business.

    Posted 06/21/2015
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    great program !

    Posted 03/10/2015
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Easy to use and extensible way of programming microcontrollers. The graphical program is great as an introduction to programming concepts, and community support is excellent.

    Posted 01/03/2015
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5


    Posted 04/10/2014
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Great Basic Programmer.. Heavily support forum All Free, and superb tips / ideas / help files / and speed. Support for Hugh amount of MCUs. I can't think of anything negative.

    Posted 01/21/2014
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Gcbasic works good.

    Posted 06/24/2013
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Very useful. Thanks.

    Posted 05/19/2013
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    im useing great cow graphic compiler with pic kit2 but gcgc doesn't seem to be passing the hex file to pic kit2 although gcgc starts the pic kit can anyone enlighten me please

    Posted 12/28/2012
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Excellent project, easy to learn about PIC and design a complex project with the forum help.

    Posted 09/16/2012
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Excellent work.

    Posted 04/24/2012
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    The interesting project. Good luck!

    Posted 03/03/2012
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    good job

    Posted 07/11/2011
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    The Easiest compiler to use for the PIC that i found so far... I think we should share allour code somewhere.

    Posted 05/28/2011
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5


    Posted 12/17/2010
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Super logiciel LIBRE ! Facile à apprendre et à utiliser ,avec ses librairies bien adaptées pour les PIC et les AVR , GCBASIC n'a rien à envier à certains logiciels commerciaux .

    Posted 05/09/2010
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Used GCBasic on four projects so far. It's great! It makes coding fun again. Good support forum. Works on Ubuntu

    Posted 12/04/2009
  • 1 of 5 2 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 5 of 5

    Works great! BASIC makes prototyping much faster

    Posted 10/13/2009

Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.

Screenshot instructions:
Red Hat Linux   Ubuntu

Click URL instructions:
Right-click on ad, choose "Copy Link", then paste here →
(This may not be possible with some types of ads)

More information about our ad policies

Briefly describe the problem (required):

Upload screenshot of ad (required):
Select a file, or drag & drop file here.

Please provide the ad click URL, if possible:

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

JavaScript is required for this form.

No, thanks