Now that the P2 - era begins - is there an EOL for P1 planned ?

2»

Comments

  • jmgjmg Posts: 14,149
    Ken Gracey wrote: »
    .. The only reason P1 would cease to exist would be a worldwide absence of foundry business. ..
    Do you have a second foundry qualified for P1 production ?
    I have seen chips go EOL, when the FAB line went down, and the FAB equipment itself went EOL with no spares, and the volumes down the line were not enough...

  • jmg wrote: »
    Ken Gracey wrote: »
    .. The only reason P1 would cease to exist would be a worldwide absence of foundry business. ..
    Do you have a second foundry qualified for P1 production ?
    I have seen chips go EOL, when the FAB line went down, and the FAB equipment itself went EOL with no spares, and the volumes down the line were not enough...

    Yes, the P1 has been made by both Austria Microsystems and TSMC.

    Ken Gracey
  • ErNa wrote: »
    I very much like to identify objects by P and a number. And make good use of the potential hidden in them.

    So I cite this to me important speech

    We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon...We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.

    Today created is a narrative, that everything has to be and is easy, even programming. That definitely is not the case. The way up is always difficult to go.

    With the thinking applied to conventional microcontrollers and their IDE's, the potential of the P1 can never be aroused.

    But it seems, the world has changed to a state, where emancipation is an evil and some just do what they can to keep people in their native state. Drugs have many faces, but always one goal. Addiction. Being addicted to P1 or P2 is worth living ;-) But there is no gateway drug.

    You did forget to attribute the quote properly. it was said by JFK, twice I think. Once at Rice U in Houston TX, and then again to the Congress and Senate. And I quite agree.

    The entire IC industry grouping got started even further because of that entire speech and the trips in space and to the Moon. Ideally what we do is a microcosm of that great event. I'm not saying that someone would turn around a build a Cube Sat around a handful of Prop devices and associated boards and sensors but why not?
  • Ken Gracey wrote: »
    The P1 will be in existence as long as customers buy it. Parallax's business exists because of the products we have made (and more importantly, which you buy); to end the P1 for some reason would bring an unnecessary end to the Parallax business. And an end to the livelihood of 20+ Parallax staff who love what they do, to 10K classrooms where our robots are used, and to countless companies who depend on us for supply (and by extension, their livelihoods).

    Design it into your products and count on a steady supply! The only reason P1 would cease to exist would be a worldwide absence of foundry business. Even if that obscure situation were to occur we would have a lifetime stocking situation to consider.

    And if you're still concerned about supply, I'll use our history to validate my point above. The SX was introduced in 1997 and was abruptly ended due to a lawsuit settlement. Even though, we had the opportunity to purchase a lifetime supply - and we still offer some SX chips for sale to our customers ten years after we promised.

    Does anybody need a BS1-IC? We've been manufacturing them for 28 years!

    Ken Gracey

    Hello!
    Extremely well said. And yes I could use yet another BS1-IC (in the OEM configuration.) or three or four or five or six......
  • ErNa wrote: »
    I very much like to identify objects by P and a number. And make good use of the potential hidden in them.

    So I cite this to me important speech

    We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon...We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.

    Today created is a narrative, that everything has to be and is easy, even programming. That definitely is not the case. The way up is always difficult to go.

    With the thinking applied to conventional microcontrollers and their IDE's, the potential of the P1 can never be aroused.

    But it seems, the world has changed to a state, where emancipation is an evil and some just do what they can to keep people in their native state. Drugs have many faces, but always one goal. Addiction. Being addicted to P1 or P2 is worth living ;-) But there is no gateway drug.

    You did forget to attribute the quote properly. it was said by JFK, twice I think. Once at Rice U in Houston TX, and then again to the Congress and Senate. And I quite agree.

    The entire IC industry grouping got started even further because of that entire speech and the trips in space and to the Moon. Ideally what we do is a microcosm of that great event. I'm not saying that someone would turn around a build a Cube Sat around a handful of Prop devices and associated boards and sensors but why not?

    I haven't seen the forum rules on which referencing style is mandated.
    I found the statement that it was a citation, the link (to Wikipedia that clearly shows JFK and explains the circumstances of the delivery of the speech) placed above the quotation, and the bold text for the body of the quotation sufficient.

    Given the temperature punishment that Parallax chips have survived, I'd think it would be an interesting experiment to see what vibration and radiation survivability they'd have. I don't have the funds for it, so someone else will need to find out for us.
  • Roy Eltham wrote: »
    Aside from the docs parallax provides on their site, there are three books available on programming the Propeller 1 on Amazon:
    https://www.amazon.com/Propeller-Programming-Using-Assembler-Spin/dp/1484233530
    https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Customizing-Multicore-Propeller-Microcontroller/dp/0071664505
    https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Propeller-Spin-Processing-Electronics/dp/0071716661

    Sure, it's not as many as are available for Arduino or RasPi, but they are there.

    And beside the abeve there is also:
    Propeller Education Kit Labs by Andy Lindsay
    Programming the Parallax Propeller using Machine Language by DeSilva
    Hydra BOOK by Andre LaMothe
    Propeller Object Exchange (last Publications / Updates) --- Oldbitcollector's guest map
    JustForMe
  • I am writing this book first of all for myself - as a document where I can store information about the propeller in a structured way.

    But there is no book in German as far as I know, so why not share my knowledge with others?

    Because I am a beginner, this book will be for beginners too.
    I tried to introduce the readers in this topic step by step:
    You will find some basics about semiconducters, logical gates, binary digits and so on. Same on electricity and parts often used in circuits.

    The knowledge is not too heavy, but extensive.
    To inform and to entertain - that's the challenge. I am no teacher, I am IT project manager ;-).

    And I am fascinated about the parallel architecture of the chip with its cogs. I think you can do more with it. Maybe I can show it.

    So nothing completely new - maybe a bit more profound, so that people (kids) new to this, can easily keep pace. Programming with Spin and a little bit assembler is the focus.

    At the End of the book you will have a simple computer, that will store information and communicate with others of the same kind - a 'simple machine'.Simple and yet useful.

    And that's my last issue for writing this book: I want to show that simple designs can perform their tasks more efficiently - and you can build them yourself and you are in total control what this machine does.

    But there is still a long way to go - many pages to write. Thank you all for your answers and support !

    Greetings
  • headcrash,

    First, I want to tell you that I am very excited to see a book on the Propeller! When I write these newsletters, customers of all types reply with the "write a book please" request. In the past, Parallax offered many printed books. These books were very popular with our customers. They were spiral-bound so you could lay them in front of your keyboard and type the code without the book flopping shut. The Stamps in Class series may have had 500K printed copies circulated: What's a Microcontroller, Process Control, Understanding Signals, Earth Measurements, Basic Analog and Digital. Many, many customers learned about microcontrollers from these books.

    Therefore, I think you're making an important effort and I think it should be a success. If you can share an advance copy, send it to kgracey@parallax.com.

    Next, you may have heard of Guenther Daubach. Guenther was a very knowledgeable product designer in Germany who wrote this https://www.parallax.com/downloads/programming-sx-microcontroller-text and I managed the print/royalty for him. Like you, his English was good enough that we were able to make minor edits and publish the book. It sold several thousand copies and customers used it as a handy reference. Mr. Daubach passed a few years ago, shortly after Chip and I had the opportunity to visit and stay at his home and he made a few trips to Parallax and stayed at my home, too.

    Looking forward to seeing what you've created!

    Sincerely,

    Ken Gracey
    Parallax Inc.
  • headcrash wrote: »
    I just would like to know if a new book in German (maybe in English too) about the P1 will pay off at all ...

    Hello headcrash,

    well, I will buy one!
    Hopefully the examples are in spin. Or spin and C.
    In your book please avoid too many repetitions. This is a problem of the book of Sandhu (which is good apart from that).
    Please make just a short introduction of the Propellers design because this is described very good in the manual.
    Bring good examples with descriptions why this is working. Maybe bring short examples of "this is not working" and why.
    Describe pitfalls.
    Please bring a easy example of the use of the object library. Maybe more examples with increasing degree of difficulty.

    Good luck and auf Wiedersehen,

    Joachim
  • In my opinion, the best language for teaching beginning programming is BASIC. Examples in BASIC will go a long way to introducing controllers with anyone interested in controlling devices and processing information.

    Discovery
  • Edsger Dijkstra once said that teaching Basic should be regarded as a criminal offense because it leads to permanent brain damage.
    --
    Reinhardt
  • JonnyMacJonnyMac Posts: 6,298
    edited 2019-12-02 - 07:11:30
    rbehm wrote: »
    Edsger Dijkstra once said that teaching Basic should be regarded as a criminal offense because it leads to permanent brain damage.
    And yet, millions of us learned BASIC, used BASIC in one form or another (or several), and still managed to go on to become professional programmers with our mental facilities intact....
    I don't get wrapped up in the "My language is better than your language." nonsense; I just try to get things done for myself or my client -- BASIC, C, Python, Spin, assembly, et al.; they're means to an end that the client has dictated to us.
    Jon McPhalen
    Hollywood, CA
    It's Jon or JonnyMac -- please do not call me Jonny.
  • One must note that he said that about the crusty BASICs of the time (1975!). Only single line IF, GOTO line number and maybe FOR/NEXT and GOSUB/RETURN. Two letter variable names, all global. PEEK/POKE for all I/O if you're particularly unlucky.
  • JonnyMac wrote: »
    rbehm wrote: »
    Edsger Dijkstra once said that teaching Basic should be regarded as a criminal offense because it leads to permanent brain damage.
    And yet, millions of us learned BASIC, used BASIC in one form or another (or several), and still managed to go on to become professional programmers with our mental facilities intact....
    I don't get wrapped up in the "My language is better than your language." nonsense; I just try to get things done for myself or my client -- BASIC, C, Python, Spin, assembly, et al.; they're means to an end that the client has dictated to us.

    Couldn't have said it any better than that :smiley:
    My Prop boards: P8XBlade2 , RamBlade , CpuBlade , TriBlade
    P1 Prop OS (also see Sphinx, PropDos, PropCmd, Spinix)
    Website: www.clusos.com
    P1: Tools (Index) , Emulators (Index) , ZiCog (Z80)
    P2: Tools & Code , Tricks & Traps
  • JonnyMac wrote: »
    rbehm wrote: »
    Edsger Dijkstra once said that teaching Basic should be regarded as a criminal offense because it leads to permanent brain damage.
    And yet, millions of us learned BASIC, used BASIC in one form or another (or several), and still managed to go on to become professional programmers with our mental facilities intact....
    I don't get wrapped up in the "My language is better than your language." nonsense; I just try to get things done for myself or my client -- BASIC, C, Python, Spin, assembly, et al.; they're means to an end that the client has dictated to us.
    Very sensible.

  • And Alan Kay said that "You probably know that arrogance, in computer science, is measured in nanodijkstras."
  • In the day, there was a school of thought that held the biggest problem with BASIC was that your program was interpreted rather than compiled and thus could never be fast enough to be useful. The alternative (at least for scientific use) was Fortran with its three-way
    If (arithmetic) LineNo, LineNo, LineNo
    
    and computed GOTO.
    Also, BASIC (generally) ran on small machines rather than IBM's and thus couldn't possibly be as good.
    Re-inventing the wheel is not a waste of time if, when you are done, you understand why it is round.
  • Dijkstra didn't have a problem with BASIC because of its speed. Another of his quips is "computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."

    His problem was that simple BASICs would not permit structured programming. You could not have meaningful variable or procedure names, you couldn't indent to show structure, you couldn't pass and return values to and from procedures. The thing is, lacking those things we all had to learn how the computer actually worked. For someone who learned with BASIC it very much is about computers and getting them to do practical things. And for Dijkstra, a man who literally hardly ever touched a computer during his career, those things are just unimportant and distracting mental clutter.
  • Of course Basic grew to overcome the original shortcomings. There was QBasic and Visual Basic. There were lots of professional systems built with VB and of course that ended up with a compiler too.
    My Prop boards: P8XBlade2 , RamBlade , CpuBlade , TriBlade
    P1 Prop OS (also see Sphinx, PropDos, PropCmd, Spinix)
    Website: www.clusos.com
    P1: Tools (Index) , Emulators (Index) , ZiCog (Z80)
    P2: Tools & Code , Tricks & Traps
  • I wonder what a language designed today within similar limitations (fit in some 16K ROM, easy to read and learn, line numbers) would look like.
    ...
    I'd certainly expect some basic functional array manipulation (map/filter/reduce/foreach)
  • It would probably look a lot like Lua or microPython.
  • Peter JakackiPeter Jakacki Posts: 8,795
    edited 2019-12-02 - 23:54:56
    Wuerfel_21 wrote: »
    I wonder what a language designed today within similar limitations (fit in some 16K ROM, easy to read and learn, line numbers) would look like.
    ...
    I'd certainly expect some basic functional array manipulation (map/filter/reduce/foreach)

    localroger wrote: »
    It would probably look a lot like Lua or microPython.

    A quick search says:
    The core Lua engine can be as small as about 100 Kilobytes by excluding un-referred libraries, which is beneficial for porting it on embedded systems or small microcontrollers with memory constraints.

    Also we know microPython is a lot larger than 16K too.

    TAQOZ Forth uses 12k of the 16K ROM (but no line numbers)

    Tachyon Forth - compact, fast, forthwright and interactive
    useforthlogo-s.png
    P2 --- The LOT --- TAQOZ INTRO & LINKS --- P2 SHORTFORM DATASHEET --- TAQOZ RELOADED - 64kB binary with room to spare
    P1 --- Latest Tachyon with EASYFILE --- Tachyon Forth News Blog --- More
    paypal.png PayPal me
    Brisbane, Australia
    phone.png
  • While Lua won't fit in 16K, the core language can be considerably more compact than 100K; it manages to live in 32K instruction and 80K data memory in an ESP8266 along with a file system and Wifi stack. It's doubtful you could duplicate Lua's list structures in so little memory but the rest of the language could probably fit, rather like Spin with some more higher-level features like garbage collected string handling, floating point math, and built in string-numeric formatting.
  • headcrashheadcrash Posts: 12
    edited 2019-12-04 - 10:49:31
    Ken Gracey wrote: »
    Therefore, I think you're making an important effort and I think it should be a success. If you can share an advance copy, send it to kgracey@parallax.com.

    Thank you Ken for this offer - I will come back on this as soon as I have finished the book in german.

    Concerning the discussion about the right programming language:
    Its Spin, because its optimized for the Propeller and it's as easy to learn as any other code.
    I want to concentrate on the unique aspect of the P1 and it's parallel design.
    A wise man said: the processor is the body - the software is the spirit.
    This is the guiding theme for me.
    Greetings !


  • headcrash wrote: »
    Concerning the discussion about the right programming language:
    Its Spin, because its optimized for the Propeller and it's as easy to learn as any other code.

    Agree.

    There's also a guarantee with SPIN.... it will always be around as it's part of the Propeller.

    Many other languages seem to come-and-go with changing fads and generational changes in the community that develops and consumes one language or another.

    Parallax has proven itself (and remains) very consistent and reliable with it's long-life supply of all it's processors, including the Propeller and thus the maintenance of SPIN tools and language references.


    In some ways I think SPIN get's overlooked too easily, as many times I find it's the most efficient and lightweight language to code with for the Propeller.

    Perhaps if it was called "SpinBasic", more people would give it a go! There does seem to be a blockage to uptake somewhere that might be related to the fear of trying something new.... It's like "what the heck is SPIN? A special new language? Oh, that's scary!" vs "Oh SpinBasic... I could understand that! Let's give it a go!"

    These are some things that a good book will always help put right; to introduce and lead through the process of learning and achievement. I look forward to ordering a copy when you are ready.
  • JRoarkJRoark Posts: 194
    edited 2019-12-04 - 11:56:45
    SPIN = Something Painful? Its Not! :)
  • Let's keep this thread for the OP's book discussion.

    Language discussion moved to new thread here: http://forums.parallax.com/discussion/170885/p1-language-thoughts

  • VonSzarvas wrote: »
    Let's keep this thread for the OP's book discussion.

    Actually it was intended as the "End Of Life of the Propeller 1"- discussion ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.