Parallax Basic Stamp 1 and PIC16F54

2»

Comments

  • @microcontrolleruser,

    I have a hard time following this thread.

    The basic stamp is a product from Parallax, actual a quite successful and long running one.

    Sure, they are more expensive then PICs. That is what finances Parallax.

    As the name implies, it is a BASIC, not C, not assembler -stamp.

    Why should Parallax develop Software to run on pics for you? Why should they give away their stamp-interpreter, so you can build your own stamp, instead of buying one from Parallax?

    You are asking a lot from Parallax, to give away their IP so you can use it without buying stuff from Parallax. Why should they even consider doing all the things you are asking for?

    Your goal seems clear, you want to use different PICs, not from Parallax, Why should they support this?

    As for a bigger and better basic stamp, yes Parallax has a product there, called the P1. They developed it about 20 years ago as a successor for the basic stamp.

    As for being 'buddies' - hmm - there where some threads here about this a long time ago, and the gist here is that there where lawsuits involved, Parallax got hit hard financially, Mel got hit hard financially, a lot of Lawyers got rich and a successful business relationship went downhill.

    Not my definition of 'buddies'.

    Enjoy!

    Mike
    I am just another Code Monkey.

    A determined coder can write COBOL programs in any language. -- Author unknown.

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this post are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

  • 'Why on earth would Parallax offer a compiler for a part they do not sell ?!'

    So that the motivation behind the Propellor.

    Let me ponder that for awhile.
    ACCURATE THINKING. DON'T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT.

  • 'bottom end PICs are essentially brain-dead'

    That is blasphemy.:) Where are the happy faces menu?

    10F200 has I/O capability only and you can take it to the bank

    that first time you use PIC's that will keep you plenty busy.
    ACCURATE THINKING. DON'T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT.

  • 'ignoring the commercial silliness '

    Parallax's strength is documentation and lesson writing.

    They would clean up with a cut down Assembler and C compiler for PIC's.

    Mr Gracy and his right hand man Lindsay could have it layed out in two weekends of work.

    First version could be for 16F or 18F only.

    Then just add support as busy work for Parallax crew.
    ACCURATE THINKING. DON'T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT.
  • jmgjmg Posts: 10,208
    'bottom end PICs are essentially brain-dead'

    That is blasphemy.:) Where are the happy faces menu?

    10F200 has I/O capability only and you can take it to the bank
    ....

    Microchip are not ashamed of selling brain-dead MCUs, they have sold billions.

    However, time marches on, and the packaging and test costs dominate over older process die, which means you can now buy (much) smarter parts for less...

    Reality check time :

    EFM8BB1 for 32c/1000, or the N76E003AT20 $0.2273/500 vs the 10F200 for 36c/1000, or the

    Resource wise, these parts are on different planets.
    EFM8BB1 has 15 ch 12b ADC, 25MHz, 2KF, 256R, I²C, SMBus, SPI, UART/USART, 16io,

    N76E003AT20 8ch 12b ADC 16 MHz 18kF 1kR 6-ch PWM 2 x UART, 1x SPI, 1 x I²C

    .... oh dear....
    10F200 specs 4MHz, 384F, 16R, 3io

    Why would anyone doing a new design, in even moderate volumes, pay more, for a whole lot less ?
  • But why should they do that?

    Would you ask Ford to write software for your Dodge Engine?

    "Parallax's strength is documentation and lesson writing" - yes, that is right, but they do that to sell their own products, not for the fun of writing documentation.

    You can not earn money by writing documentations and software you give away for free.

    And Parallax IS a business, and needs to NOT ignore 'the commercial silliness'

    So again, WHY do you think, Parallax needs to write software and documentation for a product of somebody else?

    Because they are good at writing documentation?

    If Parallax had some free resources to develop software, they should rewrite PropGCC and SimpleIDE and PropellerIDE to be at the newest Versions and also start develop PropGCC for the P2.

    But for sure they should not invest any time and money to help other companies to sell their products, why should they?

    Enjoy!

    Mike


    I am just another Code Monkey.

    A determined coder can write COBOL programs in any language. -- Author unknown.

    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this post are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
  • Parallax is now investing their resources, hardware, software, and documentation, primarily in education and educational robotics. Almost all of this effort makes use of the Propeller 1 which is completely their intellectual property and is more than adequate for the job. They do have a little support for the Arduino and they use some small microcontrollers internally (hidden from the user) in some of their products as they phase out internal use of the SX which is no longer manufactured.
  • microcontrollerusermicrocontrolleruser Posts: 251
    edited June 21 Vote Up0Vote Down
    I am trying to think what would make this a real winner.

    Transition the Basic Stamp P's to full compiled chips?

    I'm close.Just can't come up with it at the moment.

    Make PIC 32MX run like a Basic Stamp?

    Interpreted? 'Quick run' feature?

    If a user could transition from interpreted code to compiled?

    There's a good idea in this here somewhere.

    ACCURATE THINKING. DON'T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT.
  • There's not a good idea for Parallax here. Why should they invest money ... staff talent, time, and effort ... in producing a Stamp Basic compiler (and library ... and documentation ... and support training) for any of the PIC processors. Unless they sell it for a lot of money (out of range of hobbyists), they'll lose a lot on the effort. People will quickly steal the compiler unless they protect it well. If they make an interpreter and compile to bytecodes for that, they won't have the speed advantage. Microchip would make money on the effort ... Parallax not so much. They'd be much better off creating a Stamp Basic to Spin bytecode compiler or a Stamp Basic bytecode interpreter for the Propeller. PropBasic, while nice, is too different from Stamp Basic to be anything like a drop-in replacement.

    Before long the Basic Stamp will be of historical interest only for Parallax's educational market. They will have moved on to the Propeller. There will be some commercial customers who will need some Basic Stamps ... even the BS1 is still in use. No new Basic Stamp products though.

  • Okay. Got something solid.

    The SX compiles.

    Before that you are in the Parallax SX editor.

    Replace the SX with a PIC 32MX.

    Add C compiler and I think that's a good product.

    Twist is charge for the compiler.

    Let Parallax try something new. Won't kill them.

    Old SX prorammer (SX Blitz/Key) seemed to be proprietary.

    Either make Editor usable with PICKit3 or come out with another

    proprietary programmer.

    If it is current product price point should be $30-50.

    You know some consultants charge a lot of money for this kind of guidance.:) Where is the smiley face menu?
    ACCURATE THINKING. DON'T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT.
  • jmgjmg Posts: 10,208
    Replace the SX with a PIC 32MX.

    Add C compiler and I think that's a good product.

    Let's see.... PIC32MX and C compiler, where have I head that before ?
    Oh wait, someone called Microchip does both of those things...

    If it is current product price point should be $30-50.
    Let's see, something like this ?
    Only that is $5 less than your minimum....

  • jmgjmg Posts: 10,208
    Mike Green wrote: »
    ... They'd be much better off creating a Stamp Basic to Spin bytecode compiler or a Stamp Basic bytecode interpreter for the Propeller. PropBasic, while nice, is too different from Stamp Basic to be anything like a drop-in replacement.

    Before long the Basic Stamp will be of historical interest only for Parallax's educational market. They will have moved on to the Propeller. There will be some commercial customers who will need some Basic Stamps ... even the BS1 is still in use. No new Basic Stamp products though.
    Yes and no.
    Certainly the new FLiP has moved Prop into much more of the Stamp Module market, but there are still some details...

    As you say, PropBASIC is not quite Stamp BASIC, but it could be made closer, or a pre-processor could make them closer.
    That's not much effort.


    That leaves 5V compatible, and here is where both Prop1 and the suggested PIC32MX both fail.
    If Parallax did release a '2017 Stamp', it needs to be 5V operation & IO, otherwise there are too many not-backward-compatible issues.


    5V MCU, with USB on board, reasonable CPU, and a good price ? ... yes, they do exist

    Nuvoton NUC126 looks suitable, for M0 core, or maybe the M4TKVG6AE, ($2.32/1k) which has M4 core ?


  • microcontrollerusermicrocontrolleruser Posts: 251
    edited June 21 Vote Up0Vote Down
    Mike and JMG

    Thanks!

    Have a Parallax Ubicom Scenix SX angle.

    See you in the morning.
    ACCURATE THINKING. DON'T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT.
Sign In or Register to comment.