All of the reasons that you listed are subjective.
Difficulty to get started could easily be solved with a book or a forum like this.
Punctuating code is also related to the ease of use. (When we were younger we learned to put periods at the end of our sentences but now, we understand it perfectly.
One could also say that there is no central authority on any programming language because problems can be solved in many different ways with one programming language. The help that an authority could offer as far as programming goes is related to the opinions and experiences of the one helping you.
Rewards being limited is also subjective because it depends on the one doing the coding. Personally, I don't think that a blinking LED is all that fascinating.
As for the mystic, unnecessary, and restricitve instructions that you mentioned, those "restrictions" are also a matter of simply understanding the code and not flaws in logic as PBASIC has.
Practicality is probably the most subjective one of all because practicality is defined by what the user says is practical.
You say that PBASIC is meant to allow beginners to easily take up computer programming, however if they wish to learn how to program I would think that they would want to use a real language.
And while I am sure that price is a factor in selecting a microcontroller, I highly doubt that given the choice, an engineer would prefer to code in PBASIC on any other microcontroller if it was possible.
My programming history started with Java (in a classroom), then PBASIC (by myself), and now C++ and Spin (classroom and myself, respectively). Like you say, most of my reasons were subjective because those are the more difficult things for a beginner to grasp (subjective again...) By their nature, a quality that can be measured can easily be looked up using a search engine. Yet, the subjective qualities are difficult to put into a search string, so they stay around to bother the beginner more. Do I search for "Best C++ compiler" or "C++ restrictions? If I do those, then I'll get a ton of information that is over the top for the beginner.
The "flaws in logic that PBASIC has" is subjective too. Who says that addition comes after division? Why, tradition says so. So, somebody 70 years ago sat down and wrote those rules, that just caught on and spread. People got used to it, so it was kept. It's merely your expectations that are holding you back.
No, a blinking LED is pretty dull. But a robot that drives around the room? That is something that can be taught in a day, and excite students. What do you learn in a day of C++? You learn how to make a program say "Hello World" and maybe print out a list.
As for the number of nested statements (and I'd assume for recursion too), that is a hardware limitation. C++ has them too, you just don't notice them too much. Besides, if you have more than 16 nested statements or 255 GOSUB statements, then you are probably being horribly inefficient and should clean up your code.
As far as the robot that can be taught in a day. On the Parallax Robot Comparison Chart located at http://www.parallax.com/tabid/524/Default.aspx . It says that Initial programming requires 40 hours.
As far as Order of Operations goes, this is something that is used every math class from 4th grade on (depending on the curriculum). What you are saying is to "challenge" the status quo just because you can. This then could confuse "beginners" because they are used to following Order of Operations and now they have to ignore that.
I would also like to point out that I never mentioned using a search engine. I said that a source could be a book among others. A book by SAMS Publishing would be good for this. The problem wouldn't then be a beginner getting started but a beginner being a beginner at seeking information.
Also, the flaws in PBASIC are not subjective. If a program is able to do more in a logical way then another one while providing pedagogical value than that is one that is better.
Recursion and nested statements also allows for greater sophistication which in turn offers programs that offer more knowledge.
I think that seeing a project to fruition gives a great deal of confidence and a desire to learn more. The Stamp platform makes this possible. As one progresses the limitations become apparent, however you learn to adapt and be resourceful. The principles of low-level languages becomes less abstract as you hit the limitations of Basic. I think the greater chance of initial sucess with PBasic keeps the newcomers engaged long enough to become hooked. I plan to progress to lower level programming someday. There are many multi-disciplined programmers out there who keep PBasic and Stamp microcontrollers in their box of tools. The essence of what we are doing is making microcontrollers work for us.
I don't know where they got that number, but a simple movement program simply consists of five lines to make the robot move (BOE-BOT).
The order of operations for PBASIC is very logical: left to right. A fourth grader could probably grasp this concept easier than to look at where each symbol lies and analyze what's around it. Anyway, if one so desires (like me) you can simply use parenthesis to clear up any potential confusion.
Books are no different. You still have to have a keyword to use (index) or a category (table of contents) before you can find your subject. There are pros and cons to books, but they have the exact same information that you can find online. The only difference is the format.
As a note, PBASIC does handle recursion: up to four levels. But, as that is admittedly limited, you can simply translate it to a loop structure. It's a fundamental property of one sort or another that your can convert between iteration and recursion.
Plus, how much electronics theory does C++ teach you? Now, how about PBASIC?
I think that seeing a project to fruition gives a great deal of confidence and a desire to learn more. The Stamp platform makes this possible. As one progresses the limitations become apparent, however you learn to adapt and be resourceful. The principles of low-level languages become less abstract as you hit the limitations of Basic. I think the greater chance of initial sucess with PBasic keeps the newcomers engaged long enough to become hooked. I plan to progress to lower level programming someday. There are many multi-disciplined programmers out there who keep PBasic and Stamp microcontrollers in their box of tools. The essence of what we are doing is making microcontrollers work for us.
A book is not only different in format but it is a compilation of tons of information all located in one place. This would be better than hunting for various tutorials and articles via search engines.
Im not saying that it would be difficult to grasp the concept of reading math problems left to right. However, why would we want to get them in this habit and make them learn two "types of math".
As for the electronics theory of C/C++, that is just a result of what microcontroller you use. PBASIC itself does not teach you electronics theory. The electronics theory comes from using components like LEDs, resistors, capacitors, etc. This could be learned with any microcontroller.
I dont think that we are "taking" humanoido's thread. We are simply discussing differences between low-level languages and high-level languages. This was all related to previous posts that were in turn related to humanoido's project.
Thanks Mikerocontroller, I don't mind if you discuss the attributes of low and high level languages as this is directly related to the supercomputer project. There's a lot of wonderful comments here that are extremely interesting.
Machine language is faster, more difficult to program, and takes much longer to complete a project. It's not my preference. I like to concentrate on the task to solve, and not have the language a task unto itself. I know, if I had selected a chip to program in machine language and tried to build a supercomputer around it, the supercomputer would still be unfinished. Maybe that's why you don't see any hobby supercomputers built at all, with machine language programming.
Well, if you really like to program in alternate languages, go ahead. You can get Parallax chips with compilers that do C language, JAVA, GUI, etc. and chips, such as the Propeller chip, that have machine language and new language which looks very interesting. As we speak, several individuals are working on spin-prop supercomputers, and whichever languages they choose, I salute their choices, and look forward to seeing their results.
Maybe it's not true that PBASIC had a bug. But did you know Microsoft Windows is blogged as having over 10,000 bugs? How does this relate? Parallax has a mature product, PBASIC, one in which they have continued to develop over the years and improve, and comb out bugs, streamlining it into a top-of-the-line language. I'd say it's one the best BASIC versions ever invented.
By the way, the language is no longer based on GOTO. That went out years ago. It now has many new statements in version 2.5, such as beautiful and effective FOR-TO-NEXT with many supportive modifiers. You really have to love this language, and if you find it's missing a statement that some other language has, you can always write it as an add-on subroutine.
Sure, it's microcontroller orientated, with new and remarkable commands, giving it tremendous advantage, power and strength capabilities, but it's also a real pleasure to program with it. Strictly speaking, out of the 76 languages I've programmed in, PBASIC shines as one of my favorites, the most easy to work with, as well as being one of the most effective and well written BASIC languages ever to surface in the ocean of technology.
(It's very well documented - and it's a language that includes examples for nearly everything you want to do.)
It's veritable gold mine of time saving treasures, good for the hobbyist learning to program, great for professionals that want to quickly and effectively proto their projects, and even port over to other chips. In fact, if you were to do some porting over to pic chips, you'd likely find another language, by another company, that actually is a copy of PBASIC. You know what they say, flattery is the finest form of compliment. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
humanoido
Post Edited (humanoido) : 11/30/2008 2:03:46 PM GMT
There's a number of comments about speed. My quote about beating out the world's fastest supercomputer in ten categories was reiterated. You will note, these points are highly accurate and none say anything directly about speed except perhaps indirectly one could say the I/O hardware and software can parallel cluster process in massively powerful ways.
Discussion was previously developed to say there is a magnitude of power that utilizes a clustering interface of both hardware and software. For example, with the Basic Stamp 2p40, 408 I/O are simultaneously handled by paralleled software. That's very powerful. In my research, there were no supercomputers that could handle this or even the 216 by the mid-range BS2.
I think this opens up many new doors of possibilities. We will now start thinking about combining many sensors in super ways that can lead to new inventions.
I gave the project the accurately fitting name, Basic Stamp Supercomputer. Compared to a single stamp, the combination of multiple boards exceeding the original one, by a factor exceeding ten, has given it super power and super capability and super potential. The multiple simultaneous programs I've run on it are very awe inspiring. The apps listed are highly useful. I expect to see a lot more supercomputers being built at the hobby level. This is just the beginning of something wonderful.
It looks like Pi Guy has an amazing way with words. I couldn't say it better myself. Thanks!
humanoido
Pi Guy said...
Personally, I don't think it is right to attack him on the speed of his supercomputer the way you are. It is obviously not the main purpose. The main purpose is to combine many processors together to make them faster and more capable than the one before it, as well as being easy for a hobbyist to use. If he wanted to make it fast enough to complete this math quickly, he would have maybe used 12 SX's, with much faster processing speed, or 12 Propellers which would allow for 96 different cogs to run simultaneously, providing an exceptional amount of speed. Obviously, though, he didn't choose to do this. Instead he chose the slow Basic Stamp because it suited his needs for processing and he obviously likes its ease of use. This isn't about the project being like a real life supercomputer with capabilities of solving millions of problems a second; it's about having a string of easy-to-use processors available to get tasks any hobbyist might wish to complete done easily. Try writing a list of code for a REAL supercomputer, pretty hard, don't you think? Now how about writing code for this small, portable computer for the hobbyist? With thousands of documented articles for it, it shouldn't take long for even a beginner to complete it! Now that is the REAL purpose of this project! The purpose is to make a processor easy to use for any hobbyist in thier own projects, not to just run a string of calculations to make a couple people happy. Pi Guy
It's also interesting to note, not all conversations take place in this posting forum - some are private messages, email and other sources. A number of people are making suggestions for increasing the speed of the Basic Stamp Supercomputer. It looks like these methods could seriously increase the overall raw computing speed. It would be good to open up discussion for various methods of increasing the speed of a hobby supercomputer or a single board and chip. Already, there was a thread about Hot Rod a Basic Stamp. This was an experimenter's project, that concluded in highly successful ways, to increase the speed of a single particular Basic Stamp. Now we have other ways to hyper the stamp, such as Parallel Processing, Co-Parallel Coprocessing, Math Chipping, String Handling, Timing, Multiple Phasic Interrupts, and more. I think all the continued "guru" suggestions will make a serious impact in the upgrades to the Basic Stamp Supercomputer. If you have a workable idea, let's hear more about it.
Machine language is faster, more difficult to program, and takes much longer to complete a project. It's not my preference. I like to concentrate on the task to solve, and not have the language a task unto itself. I know, if I had selected a chip to program in machine language and tried to build a supercomputer around it, the supercomputer would still be unfinished. Maybe that's why you don't see any hobby supercomputers built at all, with machine language programming.
Well, if you really like to program in alternate languages, go ahead. You can get Parallax chips with compilers that do C language, JAVA, GUI, etc. and chips, such as the Propeller chip, that have machine language and new language which looks very interesting. As we speak, several individuals are working on spin-prop supercomputers, and whichever languages they choose, I salute their choices, and look forward to seeing their results.
Which Parallax product can be programmed in machine language? I have looked at thier offering and from my understanding they do not offer this. Even if they did, this would be highly unpractical because machine language is made up of 1s and 0s.
·
humanoido said...
Maybe it's not true that PBASIC had a bug. But did you know Microsoft Windows is blogged as having over 10,000 bugs? How does this relate? Parallax has a mature product, PBASIC, one in which they have continued to develop over the years and improve, and comb out bugs, streamlining it into a top-of-the-line language. I'd say it's one the best BASIC versions ever invented.
There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft Windows has that many bugs. If it had more, it would not surprise me. There is a difference though that makes this like comparing apples to oranges. Microsoft like you said yourself also has "continued to develop over the years and improve, and comb out bugs," The difference is that the flaws that I have listed are touted as "features" of PBASIC. A programming language that doesn't follow something as simple as Order of Operations is not a good programming language at all.
Really it all comes down to how they market it, Microsoft doesn't exactly scream from the hills that it has bugs. Don't get me wrong, bugs are bad and should be removed but on a project of that magnitude such as an operating system, it is understandable to have them, they are also slowly fixed with updates.
PBASIC on the other hand is praised for its ease of use because it doesn't have things like recursion and basic algebraic skills. It is like building a skyscraper with manual tools as opposed to power tools. It might be easier to operate the tools individually but, when the big picture is seen, it is very difficult to assemble the skyscraper as a whole.
humanoido said...
By the way, the language is no longer based on GOTO. That went out years ago. It now has many new statements in version 2.5, such as beautiful and effective FOR-TO-NEXT with many supportive modifiers. You really have to love this language, and if you find it's missing a statement that some other language has, you can always write it as an add-on subroutine.
While it may include things like FOR-TO-NEXT, subroutines are called with the GOTO. So, if you were to write an "add-on subroutine", it would have to be called using this shoddy programming method.
humanoido said...
Sure, it's microcontroller orientated ...
There is nothing wrong with programming microcontrollers. There are great microcontrollers out there that I have used. My issue isn't with programming microcontrollers but rather with programming a Basic Stamp with PBASIC. PBASIC is a joke when it comes to programming languages.
humanoido said...
(It's very well documented - and it's a language that includes examples for nearly everything you want to do.)
It's veritable gold mine of time saving treasures, good for the hobbyist learning to program, great for professionals that want to quickly and effectively proto their projects, and even port over to other chips. In fact, if you were to do some porting over to pic chips, you'd likely find another language, by another company, that actually is a copy of PBASIC. You know what they say, flattery is the finest form of compliment. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
I can appreciate that, I know the value of sound documentation. But in the case of the Basic Stamp, all this documentation is documenting its flaws. So while it might have examples telling how to do various things it is doing so in a way that is not practical and/or makes no sense.
It is like reading a book on how to build a house that tells you to replace a hammer's work by banging your head against the nail. Sure, its documented in a nice and easy to read format, but what it documents is not very good information.
humanoido said...
There's a number of comments about speed. My quote about beating out the world's fastest supercomputer in ten categories was reiterated. You will note, these points are highly accurate and none say anything directly about speed except perhaps indirectly one could say the I/O hardware and software can parallel cluster process in massively powerful ways.
I am not "attacking" the speed of your project.
I know that the Basic Stamp can not compete speedwise.
10 Basic stamps = 1×10e-20 of a Pentium 3
Although you seem to claim it can be used to simulate a human brain. Personally, if our brains are so easily mimiced with Basic Stamps then i have lost quite a bit of faith in humanity.
I am very well aware that your "supercomputer" could not compete speedwise with a real supercomputer. But the things that you say "beat" the world's fastest supercomputer are not even categories that a supercomputer could compete in. As I said in a previous post, my laptop then should be considered a supercomputer. The reason that a real supercomputer can not compete with things like size is that it is not meant to be portable! So that is like saying my cardboard box is better than a house because·I can move it easily.
humanoido said...
Discussion was previously developed to say there is a magnitude of power that utilizes a clustering interface of both hardware and software. For example, with the Basic Stamp 2p40, 408 I/O are simultaneously handled by paralleled software. That's very powerful. In my research, there were no supercomputers that could handle this or even the 216 by the mid-range BS2.
I just want to be sure, are you seriously saying that a real supercomputer could not handle I/Os. Maybe there none with with things connected to it but it could certainly handle it.
humanoido said...
It looks like Pi Guy has an amazing way with words. I couldn't say it better myself. Thanks!
humanoido
As said before, i was not "attacking" you on the speed of your project, I was simply pointing out its lack of practicality and use of a toy-like language.
At the end of the day, it all comes back to the beginning of this exchange. There are no benchmarks to suggest that it is anything remotely close to a supercomputer.
On almost every chip, there are spec benchmarks to see how it compares to others in the same class.
Where are these for the Basic Stamps and Propellers?
More directly related to you, Where are these benchmarks for your "supercomputer"?
Wow, so many posts in the thread! ·
Peace, you all ... ·
Humanoido: ·
Nice project. Just don’t call it a supercomputer. Call it a Super Basic Stamp, and you will be accurate and can still be proud of your accomplishment! ·
Ethan: ·
Do not defend C++ against PBASIC. C++ is not meant for microcontrollers. While it is an excellent language, the object oriented baggage results in big code. The Japanese microcontroller vendors (Hitachi, Toshiba, NEC, etc.) tried to program microcontrollers with C++ in the 90s, and abandoned the idea. ·
You can defend C against PBASIC though. All your real embedded microcontroller products (your MP3 player, your digital camera, your cell phone, etc.) are programmed in C. This is the real language that is used in the industry more than anything else many times over. ·
I agree with Mikerocontroller: ·
You can graduate from PBASIC to C or you can just start with using it. Depending on the microcontroller product, it can be as easy as or easier than PBASIC, but much more powerful. I have been using a product that is about two years old, and it has become stable. It is the C Stamp. It is much more powerful, feature-rich, cheaper, and easier to use than the Basic Stamp, but you get all the increased capabilities, sophistication, robustness, and pedagogical value of C over PBASIC. I would think that most of their customers are people that have found the Basic Stamp lacking or have needed to graduate from it. They also have lots of cheaper and easy to use accessories, but you can use your Parallax accessories, since most of them rely on a SERIN/SEROUT interface. ·
For a video of how easy it is to program with it, see: http://www.c-stamp.com/movies/SampleProgram/SampleProgram1.html ·
This describes the microcontroller: http://www.c-stamp.com/CS110000.htm ·
What I am seeing here is that someone's Completed Project thread has turned into a debate about programming languages. That is off topic here. The Completed Projects forum is for members to post their projects and for others to comment and ask questions. Debating the usefulness of various programming languages serves no purpose here. If you would like to have this discussion please move it to the Sandbox Forum.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ Chris Savage Parallax Engineering
Websters said...
supercomputer -- noun -- a mainframe computer that is one of the most powerful available at a given time
With respect to humanoido, we're probably talking semantics here -- this project is an extremely cool *hobbyist* parallel "super" computer. Is it a "supercomputer" in the technical sense, no (a feeling I had when I first read the title of the project). But so what?
Ethan123 -- I've been following this interchange closely. You make some perhaps semantically correct points, but clearly you have an axe to grind and your overall tone is extremely negative. I notice you joined the forums yesterday? Why? To discuss an admittedly niche variant of BASIC that you consider a "joke"? And without having all your facts in order, to be honest. (I would argue that most micro development environments that handle C handle "C" and not C++, that order of operations is often optional and may be changed with compile directives, that there is an "authority" for C -- it's called the ANSI Standard, that in fact there *is* a GOSUB in PBASIC, etc.).
In short, I sense something unwholesomely anal-retentive about your posts... and even that might be OK if you were 100% on your game in terms of what you are talking about. For example, for *better or worse* PBASIC is an *interpreted* language. This is a huge distinction that must be made when comparing it to other tools -- while all interpreted languages are slow, they offer an incredible advantage in terms of use of code space.
Don't get me wrong, I've pretty much moved on from Stamps in favor of micros like the SX, but that's my own taste. Certainly many professional (i.e. engineered) products are produced using embedded Stamps.
Lastly, in keeping with your own tone -- your comment about "machine" language is just silly -- though in fairness, I think what humanoido *meant* was "assembly" language, not machine language per se (both the SX and the Propeller may be programmed in C, assembly, or "variants" like SX/B and Spin). In any case, machine language is rarely "written" in binary, but in HEX. But I'm sure you knew that because you are so totally, completely awesome and all-encompassing in your knowledge.
To come full circle, even if humanoido's boasts are hyperbolic, so what? For all we know he is a 16 year old who hasn't yet had the privilege of your vast learning and experience. Or maybe a retiree. Or somewhere in between.
But his project is just *really cool* -- and he's not sitting around complaining about someone's choice of language.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. -- HST
The discussion on the infinite merits of Basic Stamps used in the supercomputer project has continued. On the lighter side, read what Google says about Basic Stamp kits and supercomputers.
Google said...
"Basic Stamp Kits ... And they process information at speeds that make a supercomputer look like an abacus. They're the fighter jets..."
While Google has put together the wording entirely on its own for this web search on Basic Stamp Supercomputer, it drives home the point I've been trying to make all along. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
I can see that you describe your project with your heart, and this clouds your objectivity, even though the consensus in the forum is that it is not a supercomputer and it is a very nice project. However, reaching for these Google links from the 10th page is not intellectually honest. These links are of supercomputer articles or books with Basic Stamp advertising. There is really no relationship. You get the same type of results by searching for ·"egg roll supercomputer" or "potato supercomputer". ·
Might I suggest that you create a sandbox thread with all posts following smitty760123 post on page two? Perhaps with a title like "PBASIC Pedagogial Value and applications". I would really like to keep on debating (or whatever this is), but I'm afraid that it will entirely drop the orriginal purpose of this thread. Please! I just had a look at the C stamp manual, and I so want to 'debate' it! Kindly, of course.
I had asked that debates be moved out of this thread…if you have a comment or question on the project, please post it and move on. To endlessly debate semantics is a waste of everyone’s time and serves no useful purpose. By continuing you only serve to draw attention to yourself. I remember a user who debated someone’s robot project saying that it did not fit the definition of a robot. This is thread is going down the same path. Let us move on now so we don’t have to remove any posts.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ Chris Savage Parallax Engineering
BSS Basic Stamp Supercomputer Upgrade
I have upgraded the BSS and improved the BSS software.
A new way to upgrade the Basic Stamp Supercomputer is now provided by adding almost any stamp to the cluster. This was accomplished by adding software code to recognize the following stamps, using conditional compilation.
BS2
BS2e
BS2pe
BS2sx
BS2p
BS2px
To test the code, a fast BS2px was added to the collective. This adds another level of speed and processing power. I'm now trying out a BS2p40 for the added I/O function, and a BS2sx for speed. A couple BS2px boards, removed from two Penguin Robots, are hive inserted to gain processing power and their respective sensors. More on adding the Penguin boards later.
For the BS2sx, a Basic Stamp Carrier board is used and the X1 socket is used like a solderless breadboard to route pins 0, 1, and 15. The carrier board solder islands offer the exact space required for the BS2px board (see photo).
The above board is being prepared to add to the BSS.
This Super Carrier Board has a BS2sx at left and a Penguin
board to the right. It makes up a compact yet powerful BSS
addition, that easily fits into the Rack. The overall footprint
is about the same size as a Basic Stamp Homework Board.
The good thing about this arrangement is that X1 has Vin and
ground which the Penguin board can tap into. Basically you'll
route 5 wires from the BS2px board and 3 from the Carrier
to the Collective.
Along this line of upgrading and adding power to the BSS, one can create "versions" with different stamps. Parallax makes an outstanding variety of stamps. Each stamp has special powers that serve well for intended BSS applications.
For example, the power processor is the BS2px (it has added new programming PBASIC code).
The stamp with the least power draw for the longest battery life is the BS2.
The stamp with the most I/O and sensor power is the BS2p40, the double memory stamp is the BS2pe.
The fastest processor speed is with the BS2sx.
humanoido
Post Edited (humanoido) : 12/2/2008 8:02:58 AM GMT
A couple of thoughts on your project: You could create "imaging" software so that all you BS2s together take a picture. If you have enough photoresistors, you could probably make a fairly high resolution picture, then translate brightness values into a grayscale image. Also, I don't know how your inner code works, but here is an idea: design (or modify) your code so that you can create sub-supercomputers: a supercomputer setup with all the hardware and connections of a regular supercomputer, except that the master in this cluster is appears as a slave in the other cluster. If you can do it with one sub-supercomputer, you can probably do it with lots.
Personally I seem limitations to using the super mainframe for Brain related research. Even though each BS could with enough training emulate basic brain structures (I'm assuming Artifical Neural Networks, since I love those) the basic fact is, inside the brain those structures are not limited to a 1-wire interface to communicate with each other, but are infact interconnected many, many, many times in different places. But that's more of a limit on the processing speed of such an attempt than anything.
The real reason is because the brain can be reduced down to a single logic gate, a neuron (perceptron if your in the know). A neuron will fire when the electric potential of its inputs exceeds a threshold value, this will cause any neuron's connected to the firing on to see it as High. This is simplified somewhat, real neurons seem to make more descisions about their environment than this model gives credit for.
When you hear a sound, all the neurons connected to your auditory nerve fire, to a set of neurons, all other neurons connected to this set respond to that set by going high or low, cascading through the brain. The neurons form a rudimentary parallel computer, but instead of a BS modeling the structures, the neurons themselves are basically the BSs, seperated by very low latency connections. And while you may be able to simulate 1k neurons on each BS, the human brain (on average) contains 100 Billion neurons.
The brain just grew and evolved in such a haphazard way, that in my humble opinion, trying to recreate the structures present is fruitless just by sheer complexity. But modeling the brains of lesser beings that have very ridged and defined structures and operate mostly on instinct. I"m glad we've gotten back on topic everyone:P
The beta software is continually improved and tested. Last night I completed upgrade sections in the Master code to increase the software capacity to 20 computers. The Worker programs are now increased to 14. The original code was written for 10 computers, and I added code each time another computer was added. Now, when a computer is added, the rem marks can be removed and the Master expansion code is fully operational. By the time the code is published, it will be greatly simplified, improved, expanded, and easy to operate. I believe, as part of the package, the Worker software should also be increased to the 20 mark.
BSS Size
In logging some of the hardware improvements, the BSS has grown from the initial 10 computer design to its current 14 computers. Of these, the last 3 computers are run and tested external to the rack, just because everything is moving so quickly. For more processors, I'm in the process of "borrowing" stamps from all my projects dating back to the 1990s. Mainly, there's some robots that will be added to the collective hive. In the end, they must be assimilated.
BSS Processor Mix
The next improvement is the mix of faster and different type computers. The tests on different stamps has been 100% successful. The integration projects include BS2, BS2px, BS2p40, and BS2sx.
BSS Board Mix
The mix of various Parallax boards is an important one. Some provide expansion breadboards for sensors (Basic Stamp HomeWork Board and BOE), and some have extra sockets (Board of Education), while some have extra space for creating the dual stamp configurations (Basic Stamp Super Carrier).
Hosting Stamp Boards, Robots
Host boards are welcome and can set outside of the rack collective, yet easily plug in with 3 wires (Penguin Robot, Boe-Bot, project breadboards, Pro Development board).
BSS With PC
The next step is integrating PC computers into the Basic Stamp collective. I've opened up other threads that deal with the specific aspects of working towards this goal.
BSS Open Project
At the hobby level, I consider this to be an open project where others can contribute ideas and make suggestions.
humanoido
Post Edited (humanoido) : 12/3/2008 6:51:11 AM GMT
Certainly brilliant minds are at work here! SRLM, imaging software is entirely doable. I like the idea of using off-the-shelf photodetectors because these are really cheap when purchased in bulk, and the stamp easily interfaces to read a resistance using a basic rc circuit and software. There's probably a way to line these up in an array or matrix to increase efficiency and speed of reading the sensor values. The processors can read the photo values, reporting continuously. One of those large magnifier lenses can form the image. The master can then take a reading at any time and construct the image. The uOLED is perfect for representing these pictures with color and grayscale levels, and it's already interfaced to the BSS. Probably tri-color imaging software could be developed with filter use. Just one thing. We'll need to determine how many standard photoresisters fit within the 6 or 8-inch diameter lens circle, and if smaller physical size components are sold.
humanoido
Post Edited (humanoido) : 12/9/2008 11:12:19 PM GMT
This is very interesting I have been thinking of doing something similar for a while. I have been wanting to make a large scale robot that would use many microcontrollers to control basic functions of the bot and previde a sort of natureal responce and have a master controller that orders them to do diffrent things.
Comments
Difficulty to get started could easily be solved with a book or a forum like this.
Punctuating code is also related to the ease of use. (When we were younger we learned to put periods at the end of our sentences but now, we understand it perfectly.
One could also say that there is no central authority on any programming language because problems can be solved in many different ways with one programming language. The help that an authority could offer as far as programming goes is related to the opinions and experiences of the one helping you.
Rewards being limited is also subjective because it depends on the one doing the coding. Personally, I don't think that a blinking LED is all that fascinating.
As for the mystic, unnecessary, and restricitve instructions that you mentioned, those "restrictions" are also a matter of simply understanding the code and not flaws in logic as PBASIC has.
Practicality is probably the most subjective one of all because practicality is defined by what the user says is practical.
You say that PBASIC is meant to allow beginners to easily take up computer programming, however if they wish to learn how to program I would think that they would want to use a real language.
And while I am sure that price is a factor in selecting a microcontroller, I highly doubt that given the choice, an engineer would prefer to code in PBASIC on any other microcontroller if it was possible.
The "flaws in logic that PBASIC has" is subjective too. Who says that addition comes after division? Why, tradition says so. So, somebody 70 years ago sat down and wrote those rules, that just caught on and spread. People got used to it, so it was kept. It's merely your expectations that are holding you back.
No, a blinking LED is pretty dull. But a robot that drives around the room? That is something that can be taught in a day, and excite students. What do you learn in a day of C++? You learn how to make a program say "Hello World" and maybe print out a list.
As for the number of nested statements (and I'd assume for recursion too), that is a hardware limitation. C++ has them too, you just don't notice them too much. Besides, if you have more than 16 nested statements or 255 GOSUB statements, then you are probably being horribly inefficient and should clean up your code.
As far as Order of Operations goes, this is something that is used every math class from 4th grade on (depending on the curriculum). What you are saying is to "challenge" the status quo just because you can. This then could confuse "beginners" because they are used to following Order of Operations and now they have to ignore that.
I would also like to point out that I never mentioned using a search engine. I said that a source could be a book among others. A book by SAMS Publishing would be good for this. The problem wouldn't then be a beginner getting started but a beginner being a beginner at seeking information.
Also, the flaws in PBASIC are not subjective. If a program is able to do more in a logical way then another one while providing pedagogical value than that is one that is better.
Recursion and nested statements also allows for greater sophistication which in turn offers programs that offer more knowledge.
The order of operations for PBASIC is very logical: left to right. A fourth grader could probably grasp this concept easier than to look at where each symbol lies and analyze what's around it. Anyway, if one so desires (like me) you can simply use parenthesis to clear up any potential confusion.
Books are no different. You still have to have a keyword to use (index) or a category (table of contents) before you can find your subject. There are pros and cons to books, but they have the exact same information that you can find online. The only difference is the format.
As a note, PBASIC does handle recursion: up to four levels. But, as that is admittedly limited, you can simply translate it to a loop structure. It's a fundamental property of one sort or another that your can convert between iteration and recursion.
Plus, how much electronics theory does C++ teach you? Now, how about PBASIC?
Im not saying that it would be difficult to grasp the concept of reading math problems left to right. However, why would we want to get them in this habit and make them learn two "types of math".
As for the electronics theory of C/C++, that is just a result of what microcontroller you use. PBASIC itself does not teach you electronics theory. The electronics theory comes from using components like LEDs, resistors, capacitors, etc. This could be learned with any microcontroller.
Machine language is faster, more difficult to program, and takes much longer to complete a project. It's not my preference. I like to concentrate on the task to solve, and not have the language a task unto itself. I know, if I had selected a chip to program in machine language and tried to build a supercomputer around it, the supercomputer would still be unfinished. Maybe that's why you don't see any hobby supercomputers built at all, with machine language programming.
Well, if you really like to program in alternate languages, go ahead. You can get Parallax chips with compilers that do C language, JAVA, GUI, etc. and chips, such as the Propeller chip, that have machine language and new language which looks very interesting. As we speak, several individuals are working on spin-prop supercomputers, and whichever languages they choose, I salute their choices, and look forward to seeing their results.
Maybe it's not true that PBASIC had a bug. But did you know Microsoft Windows is blogged as having over 10,000 bugs? How does this relate? Parallax has a mature product, PBASIC, one in which they have continued to develop over the years and improve, and comb out bugs, streamlining it into a top-of-the-line language. I'd say it's one the best BASIC versions ever invented.
By the way, the language is no longer based on GOTO. That went out years ago. It now has many new statements in version 2.5, such as beautiful and effective FOR-TO-NEXT with many supportive modifiers. You really have to love this language, and if you find it's missing a statement that some other language has, you can always write it as an add-on subroutine.
Sure, it's microcontroller orientated, with new and remarkable commands, giving it tremendous advantage, power and strength capabilities, but it's also a real pleasure to program with it. Strictly speaking, out of the 76 languages I've programmed in, PBASIC shines as one of my favorites, the most easy to work with, as well as being one of the most effective and well written BASIC languages ever to surface in the ocean of technology.
(It's very well documented - and it's a language that includes examples for nearly everything you want to do.)
It's veritable gold mine of time saving treasures, good for the hobbyist learning to program, great for professionals that want to quickly and effectively proto their projects, and even port over to other chips. In fact, if you were to do some porting over to pic chips, you'd likely find another language, by another company, that actually is a copy of PBASIC. You know what they say, flattery is the finest form of compliment. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
humanoido
Post Edited (humanoido) : 11/30/2008 2:03:46 PM GMT
Discussion was previously developed to say there is a magnitude of power that utilizes a clustering interface of both hardware and software. For example, with the Basic Stamp 2p40, 408 I/O are simultaneously handled by paralleled software. That's very powerful. In my research, there were no supercomputers that could handle this or even the 216 by the mid-range BS2.
I think this opens up many new doors of possibilities. We will now start thinking about combining many sensors in super ways that can lead to new inventions.
I gave the project the accurately fitting name, Basic Stamp Supercomputer. Compared to a single stamp, the combination of multiple boards exceeding the original one, by a factor exceeding ten, has given it super power and super capability and super potential. The multiple simultaneous programs I've run on it are very awe inspiring. The apps listed are highly useful. I expect to see a lot more supercomputers being built at the hobby level. This is just the beginning of something wonderful.
humanoido
humanoido
humanoido
· There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft Windows has that many bugs. If it had more, it would not surprise me. There is a difference though that makes this like comparing apples to oranges. Microsoft like you said yourself also has "continued to develop over the years and improve, and comb out bugs," The difference is that the flaws that I have listed are touted as "features" of PBASIC. A programming language that doesn't follow something as simple as Order of Operations is not a good programming language at all.
Really it all comes down to how they market it, Microsoft doesn't exactly scream from the hills that it has bugs. Don't get me wrong, bugs are bad and should be removed but on a project of that magnitude such as an operating system, it is understandable to have them, they are also slowly fixed with updates.
PBASIC on the other hand is praised for its ease of use because it doesn't have things like recursion and basic algebraic skills. It is like building a skyscraper with manual tools as opposed to power tools. It might be easier to operate the tools individually but, when the big picture is seen, it is very difficult to assemble the skyscraper as a whole.
While it may include things like FOR-TO-NEXT, subroutines are called with the GOTO. So, if you were to write an "add-on subroutine", it would have to be called using this shoddy programming method.
There is nothing wrong with programming microcontrollers. There are great microcontrollers out there that I have used. My issue isn't with programming microcontrollers but rather with programming a Basic Stamp with PBASIC. PBASIC is a joke when it comes to programming languages.
I can appreciate that, I know the value of sound documentation. But in the case of the Basic Stamp, all this documentation is documenting its flaws. So while it might have examples telling how to do various things it is doing so in a way that is not practical and/or makes no sense.
It is like reading a book on how to build a house that tells you to replace a hammer's work by banging your head against the nail. Sure, its documented in a nice and easy to read format, but what it documents is not very good information.
I am not "attacking" the speed of your project.
I know that the Basic Stamp can not compete speedwise.
10 Basic stamps = 1×10e-20 of a Pentium 3
Although you seem to claim it can be used to simulate a human brain. Personally, if our brains are so easily mimiced with Basic Stamps then i have lost quite a bit of faith in humanity.
I am very well aware that your "supercomputer" could not compete speedwise with a real supercomputer. But the things that you say "beat" the world's fastest supercomputer are not even categories that a supercomputer could compete in. As I said in a previous post, my laptop then should be considered a supercomputer. The reason that a real supercomputer can not compete with things like size is that it is not meant to be portable! So that is like saying my cardboard box is better than a house because·I can move it easily.
I just want to be sure, are you seriously saying that a real supercomputer could not handle I/Os. Maybe there none with with things connected to it but it could certainly handle it.
As said before, i was not "attacking" you on the speed of your project, I was simply pointing out its lack of practicality and use of a toy-like language.
At the end of the day, it all comes back to the beginning of this exchange. There are no benchmarks to suggest that it is anything remotely close to a supercomputer.
On almost every chip, there are spec benchmarks to see how it compares to others in the same class.
Where are these for the Basic Stamps and Propellers?
More directly related to you, Where are these benchmarks for your "supercomputer"?
·
Peace, you all ...
·
Humanoido:
·
Nice project. Just don’t call it a supercomputer. Call it a Super Basic Stamp, and you will be accurate and can still be proud of your accomplishment!
·
Ethan:
·
Do not defend C++ against PBASIC. C++ is not meant for microcontrollers. While it is an excellent language, the object oriented baggage results in big code. The Japanese microcontroller vendors (Hitachi, Toshiba, NEC, etc.) tried to program microcontrollers with C++ in the 90s, and abandoned the idea.
·
You can defend C against PBASIC though. All your real embedded microcontroller products (your MP3 player, your digital camera, your cell phone, etc.) are programmed in C. This is the real language that is used in the industry more than anything else many times over.
·
I agree with Mikerocontroller:
·
You can graduate from PBASIC to C or you can just start with using it. Depending on the microcontroller product, it can be as easy as or easier than PBASIC, but much more powerful. I have been using a product that is about two years old, and it has become stable. It is the C Stamp. It is much more powerful, feature-rich, cheaper, and easier to use than the Basic Stamp, but you get all the increased capabilities, sophistication, robustness, and pedagogical value of C over PBASIC. I would think that most of their customers are people that have found the Basic Stamp lacking or have needed to graduate from it. They also have lots of cheaper and easy to use accessories, but you can use your Parallax accessories, since most of them rely on a SERIN/SEROUT interface.
·
For a video of how easy it is to program with it, see:
http://www.c-stamp.com/movies/SampleProgram/SampleProgram1.html
·
This describes the microcontroller:
http://www.c-stamp.com/CS110000.htm
·
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Chris Savage
Parallax Engineering
With respect to humanoido, we're probably talking semantics here -- this project is an extremely cool *hobbyist* parallel "super" computer. Is it a "supercomputer" in the technical sense, no (a feeling I had when I first read the title of the project). But so what?
Ethan123 -- I've been following this interchange closely. You make some perhaps semantically correct points, but clearly you have an axe to grind and your overall tone is extremely negative. I notice you joined the forums yesterday? Why? To discuss an admittedly niche variant of BASIC that you consider a "joke"? And without having all your facts in order, to be honest. (I would argue that most micro development environments that handle C handle "C" and not C++, that order of operations is often optional and may be changed with compile directives, that there is an "authority" for C -- it's called the ANSI Standard, that in fact there *is* a GOSUB in PBASIC, etc.).
In short, I sense something unwholesomely anal-retentive about your posts... and even that might be OK if you were 100% on your game in terms of what you are talking about. For example, for *better or worse* PBASIC is an *interpreted* language. This is a huge distinction that must be made when comparing it to other tools -- while all interpreted languages are slow, they offer an incredible advantage in terms of use of code space.
Don't get me wrong, I've pretty much moved on from Stamps in favor of micros like the SX, but that's my own taste. Certainly many professional (i.e. engineered) products are produced using embedded Stamps.
Lastly, in keeping with your own tone -- your comment about "machine" language is just silly -- though in fairness, I think what humanoido *meant* was "assembly" language, not machine language per se (both the SX and the Propeller may be programmed in C, assembly, or "variants" like SX/B and Spin). In any case, machine language is rarely "written" in binary, but in HEX. But I'm sure you knew that because you are so totally, completely awesome and all-encompassing in your knowledge.
To come full circle, even if humanoido's boasts are hyperbolic, so what? For all we know he is a 16 year old who hasn't yet had the privilege of your vast learning and experience. Or maybe a retiree. Or somewhere in between.
But his project is just *really cool* -- and he's not sitting around complaining about someone's choice of language.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. -- HST
1uffakind.com/robots/povBitMapBuilder.php
1uffakind.com/robots/resistorLadder.php
humanoido
I can see that you describe your project with your heart, and this clouds your objectivity, even though the consensus in the forum is that it is not a supercomputer and it is a very nice project. However, reaching for these Google links from the 10th page is not intellectually honest. These links are of supercomputer articles or books with Basic Stamp advertising. There is really no relationship. You get the same type of results by searching for ·"egg roll supercomputer" or "potato supercomputer".
·
Is the C-Stamp your product or are you associated with the company?
I think the point is made and I'm trying to understand the motivation at this stage.
Ken Gracey
Parallax, Inc.
Post Edited (Ken Gracey (Parallax)) : 12/1/2008 12:08:38 AM GMT
http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?p=546391
If this processor is so bad that any engineer would drop dead using it, then how did this project get made?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PG
Might I suggest that you create a sandbox thread with all posts following smitty760123 post on page two? Perhaps with a title like "PBASIC Pedagogial Value and applications". I would really like to keep on debating (or whatever this is), but I'm afraid that it will entirely drop the orriginal purpose of this thread. Please! I just had a look at the C stamp manual, and I so want to 'debate' it! Kindly, of course.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Chris Savage
Parallax Engineering
I have upgraded the BSS and improved the BSS software.
A new way to upgrade the Basic Stamp Supercomputer is now provided by adding almost any stamp to the cluster. This was accomplished by adding software code to recognize the following stamps, using conditional compilation.
BS2
BS2e
BS2pe
BS2sx
BS2p
BS2px
To test the code, a fast BS2px was added to the collective. This adds another level of speed and processing power. I'm now trying out a BS2p40 for the added I/O function, and a BS2sx for speed. A couple BS2px boards, removed from two Penguin Robots, are hive inserted to gain processing power and their respective sensors. More on adding the Penguin boards later.
For the BS2sx, a Basic Stamp Carrier board is used and the X1 socket is used like a solderless breadboard to route pins 0, 1, and 15. The carrier board solder islands offer the exact space required for the BS2px board (see photo).
The above board is being prepared to add to the BSS.
This Super Carrier Board has a BS2sx at left and a Penguin
board to the right. It makes up a compact yet powerful BSS
addition, that easily fits into the Rack. The overall footprint
is about the same size as a Basic Stamp Homework Board.
The good thing about this arrangement is that X1 has Vin and
ground which the Penguin board can tap into. Basically you'll
route 5 wires from the BS2px board and 3 from the Carrier
to the Collective.
Along this line of upgrading and adding power to the BSS, one can create "versions" with different stamps. Parallax makes an outstanding variety of stamps. Each stamp has special powers that serve well for intended BSS applications.
For example, the power processor is the BS2px (it has added new programming PBASIC code).
The stamp with the least power draw for the longest battery life is the BS2.
The stamp with the most I/O and sensor power is the BS2p40, the double memory stamp is the BS2pe.
The fastest processor speed is with the BS2sx.
humanoido
Post Edited (humanoido) : 12/2/2008 8:02:58 AM GMT
The real reason is because the brain can be reduced down to a single logic gate, a neuron (perceptron if your in the know). A neuron will fire when the electric potential of its inputs exceeds a threshold value, this will cause any neuron's connected to the firing on to see it as High. This is simplified somewhat, real neurons seem to make more descisions about their environment than this model gives credit for.
When you hear a sound, all the neurons connected to your auditory nerve fire, to a set of neurons, all other neurons connected to this set respond to that set by going high or low, cascading through the brain. The neurons form a rudimentary parallel computer, but instead of a BS modeling the structures, the neurons themselves are basically the BSs, seperated by very low latency connections. And while you may be able to simulate 1k neurons on each BS, the human brain (on average) contains 100 Billion neurons.
The brain just grew and evolved in such a haphazard way, that in my humble opinion, trying to recreate the structures present is fruitless just by sheer complexity. But modeling the brains of lesser beings that have very ridged and defined structures and operate mostly on instinct. I"m glad we've gotten back on topic everyone:P
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
(0_^)
Workers v1.3, Master v1.9
The beta software is continually improved and tested. Last night I completed upgrade sections in the Master code to increase the software capacity to 20 computers. The Worker programs are now increased to 14. The original code was written for 10 computers, and I added code each time another computer was added. Now, when a computer is added, the rem marks can be removed and the Master expansion code is fully operational. By the time the code is published, it will be greatly simplified, improved, expanded, and easy to operate. I believe, as part of the package, the Worker software should also be increased to the 20 mark.
humanoido
BSS Size
In logging some of the hardware improvements, the BSS has grown from the initial 10 computer design to its current 14 computers. Of these, the last 3 computers are run and tested external to the rack, just because everything is moving so quickly. For more processors, I'm in the process of "borrowing" stamps from all my projects dating back to the 1990s. Mainly, there's some robots that will be added to the collective hive. In the end, they must be assimilated.
BSS Processor Mix
The next improvement is the mix of faster and different type computers. The tests on different stamps has been 100% successful. The integration projects include BS2, BS2px, BS2p40, and BS2sx.
BSS Board Mix
The mix of various Parallax boards is an important one. Some provide expansion breadboards for sensors (Basic Stamp HomeWork Board and BOE), and some have extra sockets (Board of Education), while some have extra space for creating the dual stamp configurations (Basic Stamp Super Carrier).
Hosting Stamp Boards, Robots
Host boards are welcome and can set outside of the rack collective, yet easily plug in with 3 wires (Penguin Robot, Boe-Bot, project breadboards, Pro Development board).
BSS With PC
The next step is integrating PC computers into the Basic Stamp collective. I've opened up other threads that deal with the specific aspects of working towards this goal.
BSS Open Project
At the hobby level, I consider this to be an open project where others can contribute ideas and make suggestions.
humanoido
Post Edited (humanoido) : 12/3/2008 6:51:11 AM GMT
Certainly brilliant minds are at work here! SRLM, imaging software is entirely doable. I like the idea of using off-the-shelf photodetectors because these are really cheap when purchased in bulk, and the stamp easily interfaces to read a resistance using a basic rc circuit and software. There's probably a way to line these up in an array or matrix to increase efficiency and speed of reading the sensor values. The processors can read the photo values, reporting continuously. One of those large magnifier lenses can form the image. The master can then take a reading at any time and construct the image. The uOLED is perfect for representing these pictures with color and grayscale levels, and it's already interfaced to the BSS. Probably tri-color imaging software could be developed with filter use. Just one thing. We'll need to determine how many standard photoresisters fit within the 6 or 8-inch diameter lens circle, and if smaller physical size components are sold.
humanoido
Post Edited (humanoido) : 12/9/2008 11:12:19 PM GMT