No, some of us unrepentent critics are still here It's just that there's lots more interesting threads on the forums at the moment. However, I'll concede that there seems to be a few people interested in an XMOS co-processor for the Propeller, so even if this thread was originally started with other reasons in mind, it seems to have found a suitable audience of Propeller-heads. In any case, the forums (not to mention the Propeller itself) can surely stand a few threads promoting a competitor product.
One point though - the XLINK protocol may provide an interesting challenge to implement on the Prop, but others have made the point that this particular protocol is not particularly well suited for communications with a Prop, so (apart, from the challenge itself), why use it? If you really want to make these two chips communicate well, then why not implement somehing better suited to the Prop on the XMOS instead? Call me cynical (everyone else does) but perhaps that would make the whole idea a little too Prop-specific to suit the XMOS proponents?
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
> If you really want to make these two chips communicate well, then why not implement somehing better suited to the Prop on
> the XMOS instead?
Valid point!
Preferably, that should be some standard and not a new invention. Something like SPI, or RS232. No, kidding in behalf of RS232.
Do you have suggestions? Cerainly a protocol that can adopt to any speed and doesn't use too many pins.
Nick
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Never use force, just go for a bigger hammer!
The DIY Digital-Readout for mills, lathes etc.: YADRO
The point is which bandwidth do you want to achieve ?. RS-232 is fairly easy on both processors. SPI works till some Mbits with the prop and till 25 or 50 MHz in the XMOS. The Xlink, using both edges to transmit information, doesn't suit waitpeq nor waitpne :-(. And to use it at low speed... it may be better SPI or Beau's nice 4 bit sync protocol that I always use between props with very good results.
Edit: @Cluso:
I do not really think the prop and xmos has much to offer that the XMOS alone cannot do. But If you think that the XC-1 Leon is using has 4 processors but very few IOs (the BGA512 has 256 IOs but only a quarter are available) it makes a bit more sense.
Do not forget that I bundled the propeller, and two of them!, to both the 68008 and to the 68020. The prop has many more RAW MIPS but access to larger memories are not particularly easy nor convenient. You can also ask me why: because I always wanted my own 68k-based board, because I thought it provided an interesting challenge.
There is one very good reason to use the XLINK protocol for Prop to XMOS communication.
At the XMOS end the XLINK protocol is pretty much all taken care of at the hardware level.
That means it is not necessary to waste a thread or a core just to get data in and out via an XLINK channel.
The code in the XMOS to send and receive on the XLINK channel the comes down to something like:
// Declare a channel.
chan c;
// Declare a data byte
char data;
.
.
// Read a byte from the channel
c :> data;
.
.
// Write a byte to the channel
c <: data;
Pretty straight forward.
There is no need to dedicate an XMOS thread or core to RS234 or SPI or whatever protocol handling.
Meanwhile on the Prop end a COG or two is dedicated to this communication task no matter it is. So there is no extra lost resources there.
Down side is of course the Speed or lack of it over this link. The 5 wire XLINK could be used but that eats a lot of Prop pins (5 in each direction).
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
Cluso: "I am still to be convinced this is a legitimate thread." and "I think is this thread is an excuse to promote the XMOS chip on a Propeller thread"
Cluso, you are a hard man to please but I will try anyway. I've probably said this before but I'll try a different way.
This forum is exactly the place where we should discuss how to make use of random device X with the Prop. Where X is any RAM, ROM, realtime clock, accelerometer or whatever. We can then get on with sorting out:
1) What schematic is best for the interface with X in some application
2) How the PCB layout should look this combination.
3) How to deal with power supply requirements.
4) How to drive X from Spin or PASM.
etc etc etc
There are hundreds of such threads here.
I don't see why the fact that X = XMOS in this case is seen in such a negative light. For example the hows and whys of driving an XLINK protocol seem to be quite a legitimate subject of debate here. As is any other means of interfaceing with this device.
I do agree that at some point the subject could diverge off into the world of how to program the XMOS or become a sales pitch for it. At which point things should move over to a more appropriate forum.
I don't see that that has happened yet.
Also, as I have said before, I think the Prop and XMOS live in different worlds. I don't think Parallax has reason for any fears.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
Heater is correct in his analysis of the rationale for implementing an XLink on the Propeller, it makes things very nice at the XMOS end. XMOS themselves have done it with an AVR connected to a Propeller, and someone has done it in an FPGA. For now, I'm using a bi-directional 8-bit parallel port. It could just as well use Beau's four-bit interface, or an XLink (I'd need to use a different XMOS port), on the same hardware. It would be up to the user.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
What's with the conspiracy theories? It's pretty obvious to a near outsider like myself that Leon, heater, and Ale are all Propeller enthusiasts. It'd be a shame to have to stifle creativity by kowtowing to the One True Microcontroller. I can understand drawing the line at crass promotion of the XMOS over the Propeller, but charging treason when someone mentions another MCU or platform is absurd.
You'd have to be drinking the kool-aid to really believe that there aren't MCUs out there distinct advantages and disadvantages when compared to the Propeller. The XMOS, USB-enabled PICs and AVRs, etc do some things better than the Propeller... Making those comparisons is what moves the platform forward- especially when you're not just making general comparisons but actually discussing implementing software for the Propeller!
I'm proud to say that I use and enjoy the Propeller, 8, 16, and 32 bit PICs, the Arduino, AVRs in general, and Linux-capable ARMs- now that SparkFun has a board, I'll probably try out the XMOS as well. If that gets me banned, so be it. If the Propeller isn't a platform robust enough to withstand any discussion, debate, or comparisons then the investment I've made for it to become my primary MCU will have been for naught.
RevAaron, Thank you for putting it so nicely. I'm certainly not in cahoots with anyone plotting the downfall of the Propeller and Parallax. "Conspiracy" indeed.
In my small way I have invested a great deal of time and effort into the Prop. It now occupies a significant share of my remaining brain cells. So I can only hope it has a long and prosperous life.
I'm quite confident the Prop can stand comparisons on it's own two feet (Well 40 feet in my preferred case) and exploring ways of mixing and matching it with other devices with a view to exploiting the best features of both is no bad thing. "Leveraging synergy" and all that.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
The two chips can't really be compared; they are completely different in terms of facilities and performance, and are really intended for different markets. They don't compete in any way with each other, as I see it.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
That's what I keep saying, Leon. It's not just the processor architecture either, it's the whole deal:
Spin vs C and XC
PASM vs horribly complicated instruction set designed for compiler writers.
Prop Tool vs Eclipse.
Serial programming vs JTAG nightmare.
Easy to use packages vs BGA's
Minimal circuit requirements (not even an XTAL to get started) vs having to by a $100 board to carry the chip.
Pins that can drive LEDS and VGA nicely vs pins that barely can.
Parallax itself, working on its own resources for the long haul vs XMOS working on venture capital that could dry up and leave everyone in the lurch (Think INMOS)
Etc, Etc.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
On the other hand, forgive us Brits for flying the flag, just a little bit, for a home grown product occasionally. We have so few of them nowadays[noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
I thought it was about time I found out what I was talking about[noparse]:)[/noparse]
I've already determined that it is not possible to use those devices to build a CP/M computer smaller, cheaper, and less power hungry than with a Prop.
ZiCog rules, and on the Prop II it will rule even more[noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
heater said...
That's what I keep saying, Leon. It's not just the processor architecture either, it's the whole deal:
Spin vs C and XC
PASM vs horribly complicated instruction set designed for compiler writers.
Prop Tool vs Eclipse.
Serial programming vs JTAG nightmare.
Easy to use packages vs BGA's
Minimal circuit requirements (not even an XTAL to get started) vs having to by a $100 board to carry the chip.
Pins that can drive LEDS and VGA nicely vs pins that barely can.
Parallax itself, working on its own resources for the long haul vs XMOS working on venture capital that could dry up and leave everyone in the lurch (Think INMOS)
Etc, Etc.
C & XC are much faster and easier to use than Spin.
The XMOS assembler is just as easy to use as that of the Propeller (ask Ale).
XDE is a much more professional application than the Propeller Tool, and offers far more facilities. It also works under Linux and MACOS.
JTAG is an industry standard and offers debugging.
Some XMOS chips are in QFP. I'd like to see a DIL or QFP package with 512 pins.
A minimal XMOS circuit can be very simple - see the SFE board.
The XMOS chip can do VGA (ask Ale). The sort of applications it is used in don't need high current drivers.
Inmos was financed by the UK government, and it was ST that pulled the plug after buying the company. XMOS actually did their development on a shoestring, by industry standards, only taking two years from scratch with a very small team, and their chip is far more complex than the Propeller.
Plus
1600 MIPS vs 160 MIPS.
Hardware threads switching in one clock.
etc. etc.
I don't see why anyone wants to run a 30 year old OS on a 21st century chip. A $99 FPGA board with a Z80 emulated in hardware will run a lot faster, and can emulate lots of other chips and OSs. The XMOS chips don't need an OS for their intended applications.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
> ZiCog rules, and on the Prop II it will rule even more[noparse]:)[/noparse]
Not very British!
I'll find out what the XMOS is better at and where the Prop is good at. I think (but don't know yet) that I will continue to use both. Including that 8-pin PIC 12F629 that I just put on a board for a stupid task.
And if I have to, I'll solder BGAs. Hand soldering 0603 doesn't frighten me at all, so I'll master a BGA too.
Nick
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Never use force, just go for a bigger hammer!
The DIY Digital-Readout for mills, lathes etc.: YADRO
Leon, from where you and I view things all that you say may be true. But...
I'm fairly certain that for someone who has never programmed before or who's major object in life is not programming Spin is much easier to get on with than C and XC. Think of high school kids or casual users who want to quickly do something.
Same for the assembler languages.
Same for the Prop tool vs Eclipse. Which by the way is not working correctly on my Debian box despite being written in "compile once run anywhere" Java. What a crock.
JTAG is an industry standard and a wonderful thing but that means nothing to the target group I'm considering here.
You may be right about the minimal circuit. However I doubt anything beats the DIP Prop hanging of a serial port on a bread board that I started my Prop exploration with.
As Ale said the XMOS only just has enough drive to do VGA. But think you know what I mean about current drive.
The point about INMOS was only to point out that there is a risk in basing your developments on a start-up product. As David May pointed out, users of the transputer in robotic applications are now having to scrape around for Transputers on ebay. Parallax has been around longer than INMOS was I think.
OK can't argue the speed case. Only that I'd rather drive a Range Rover in Lapland than a Ferrari.
So there are many comparisons to be made, different people and different applications will have different priorities.
Finally:
"I don't see why anyone wants to run a 30 year old OS on a 21st century chip."
Buggered if I know[noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
The main difference is that the XMOS chips are intended mainly for deeply-embedded high-performance professional applications, including high-end audio systems and FPGA replacement, whilst the Propeller is mainly aimed at the hobbyist market.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
C'mon guys - your recent posts make it clear that even if this was not your original intention, this thread is degenerating into an XMOS vs Prop ("my XC compiler is better than your SPIN compiler") kind of debate - which is exactly what many of us suspected might occur.
As mpark (and others, including myself) have pointed out, there is a fine line between making constructive criticism of the Prop by comparing it with another product, and using such a comparison to try and generate some interest in a competitors product amongst the Prop users who read these forums. You don't need a conspiracy theory to see that Leon's most recent posts in this thread have crossed that line. I also find them a bit discourteous his hosts here on these forums.
Parallax may feel constrained not to respond to such posts lest they be accused of "stifling debate" - but I have no such compunction. To quote the late great Douglas Adams “If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
C'mon guys - your recent posts make it clear that even if this was not your original intention, this thread is degenerating into an XMOS vs Prop ("my XC compiler is better than your SPIN compiler") kind of debate - which is exactly what many of us suspected might occur.
As mpark (and others, including myself) have pointed out, there is a fine line between making constructive criticism of the Prop by comparing it with another product, and using such a comparison to try and generate some interest in a competitors product amongst the Prop users who read these forums. You don't need a conspiracy theory to see that Leon's most recent posts in this thread have crossed that line. I also find them a bit discourteous his hosts here on these forums.
Parallax may feel constrained not to respond to such posts lest they be accused of "stifling debate" - but I have no such compunction. To quote the late great Douglas Adams “If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Ross.
I started this thread for discussion of the XProp system, but it seems to have degenerated into a "my chip is better than yours debate" started by someone who should know better - not by me.
If anyone wants to debate the relative merits of the XMOS chips and the Propeller, please start a new thread.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
heater said...
OK can't argue the speed case. Only that I'd rather drive a Range Rover in Lapland than a Ferrari.
Sorry heater, but I rather drive a Ferrari in every land. If I cannot drive because of the road I take it on my shoulders and go by walk. A Ferrari is always a Ferrari and when you refer to it you shouldn't refer to it as a car but as The Car.
Sorry heater, I am italian
As much as I might lust after a Ferrari, heck a Ducati would do me nobody makes machines as beautiful as the Italians do, I think if I had one it would stay at home during my trips to Lapland. I'd hate to think of it being crushed by moose, grounded on rocks, and buried under snow.
Anyway, enough of all this off topic rambling, this is my last post on this thread until I come up with something concrete to contribute. Honest...
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
heater said...
Oh dear, now I've started a car debate...
As much as I might lust after a Ferrari, heck a Ducati would do me nobody makes machines as beautiful as the Italians do
As the owner of a couple of aforementioned pieces of two wheeled art I can confidently say the Italians make art, but the Germans make machines.
Germans seem to make their machines out of real metal that run pretty much forever, while the Italian mechanics appear to be made from cheese and I suspect they learned their electrical trade from the great Mr Lucas (prince of darkness). They do look incredible though (even when they are not moving - which is fortunate as that seems to happen not-infrequently).
Tamburini is a legend [noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
The only thing I see here is a cult kool-aid drinkers mentality where certain folks flip out and get real nasty when someone brings up another micro in discussion. Especially the X chip which many see here as the enemy which for some reason must not mentioned at all. Shades of Lord Voldemort.
Look the Prop isn't the only micro out there and comparisons will be made no matter how badly you want to go Big Brother and silence folks who violate your or Heaters unwritten forum rules.
And what was Leon's crime? Attaching a Prop to the X chip and posting about it.
Comments
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 11/24/2009 8:22:09 AM GMT
No, some of us unrepentent critics are still here
One point though - the XLINK protocol may provide an interesting challenge to implement on the Prop, but others have made the point that this particular protocol is not particularly well suited for communications with a Prop, so (apart, from the challenge itself), why use it? If you really want to make these two chips communicate well, then why not implement somehing better suited to the Prop on the XMOS instead? Call me cynical (everyone else does) but perhaps that would make the whole idea a little too Prop-specific to suit the XMOS proponents?
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Links to other interesting threads:
· Home of the MultiBladeProps: TriBlade,·RamBlade,·SixBlade, website
· Single Board Computer:·3 Propeller ICs·and a·TriBladeProp board (ZiCog Z80 Emulator)
· Prop Tools under Development or Completed (Index)
· Emulators: CPUs Z80 etc; Micros Altair etc;· Terminals·VT100 etc; (Index) ZiCog (Z80) , MoCog (6809)
· Search the Propeller forums·(uses advanced Google search)
My cruising website is: ·www.bluemagic.biz·· MultiBladeProp is: www.bluemagic.biz/cluso.htm
> the XMOS instead?
Valid point!
Preferably, that should be some standard and not a new invention. Something like SPI, or RS232. No, kidding in behalf of RS232.
Do you have suggestions? Cerainly a protocol that can adopt to any speed and doesn't use too many pins.
Nick
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Never use force, just go for a bigger hammer!
The DIY Digital-Readout for mills, lathes etc.:
YADRO
Edit: @Cluso:
I do not really think the prop and xmos has much to offer that the XMOS alone cannot do. But If you think that the XC-1 Leon is using has 4 processors but very few IOs (the BGA512 has 256 IOs but only a quarter are available) it makes a bit more sense.
Do not forget that I bundled the propeller, and two of them!, to both the 68008 and to the 68020. The prop has many more RAW MIPS but access to larger memories are not particularly easy nor convenient. You can also ask me why: because I always wanted my own 68k-based board, because I thought it provided an interesting challenge.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Visit some of my articles at Propeller Wiki:
MATH on the propeller propeller.wikispaces.com/MATH
pPropQL: propeller.wikispaces.com/pPropQL
pPropQL020: propeller.wikispaces.com/pPropQL020
OMU for the pPropQL/020 propeller.wikispaces.com/OMU
Post Edited (Ale) : 11/24/2009 10:10:45 AM GMT
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Links to other interesting threads:
· Home of the MultiBladeProps: TriBlade,·RamBlade,·SixBlade, website
· Single Board Computer:·3 Propeller ICs·and a·TriBladeProp board (ZiCog Z80 Emulator)
· Prop Tools under Development or Completed (Index)
· Emulators: CPUs Z80 etc; Micros Altair etc;· Terminals·VT100 etc; (Index) ZiCog (Z80) , MoCog (6809)
· Search the Propeller forums·(uses advanced Google search)
My cruising website is: ·www.bluemagic.biz·· MultiBladeProp is: www.bluemagic.biz/cluso.htm
At the XMOS end the XLINK protocol is pretty much all taken care of at the hardware level.
That means it is not necessary to waste a thread or a core just to get data in and out via an XLINK channel.
The code in the XMOS to send and receive on the XLINK channel the comes down to something like:
Pretty straight forward.
There is no need to dedicate an XMOS thread or core to RS234 or SPI or whatever protocol handling.
Meanwhile on the Prop end a COG or two is dedicated to this communication task no matter it is. So there is no extra lost resources there.
Down side is of course the Speed or lack of it over this link. The 5 wire XLINK could be used but that eats a lot of Prop pins (5 in each direction).
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
Cluso, you are a hard man to please but I will try anyway. I've probably said this before but I'll try a different way.
This forum is exactly the place where we should discuss how to make use of random device X with the Prop. Where X is any RAM, ROM, realtime clock, accelerometer or whatever. We can then get on with sorting out:
1) What schematic is best for the interface with X in some application
2) How the PCB layout should look this combination.
3) How to deal with power supply requirements.
4) How to drive X from Spin or PASM.
etc etc etc
There are hundreds of such threads here.
I don't see why the fact that X = XMOS in this case is seen in such a negative light. For example the hows and whys of driving an XLINK protocol seem to be quite a legitimate subject of debate here. As is any other means of interfaceing with this device.
I do agree that at some point the subject could diverge off into the world of how to program the XMOS or become a sales pitch for it. At which point things should move over to a more appropriate forum.
I don't see that that has happened yet.
Also, as I have said before, I think the Prop and XMOS live in different worlds. I don't think Parallax has reason for any fears.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 11/24/2009 1:10:58 PM GMT
You'd have to be drinking the kool-aid to really believe that there aren't MCUs out there distinct advantages and disadvantages when compared to the Propeller. The XMOS, USB-enabled PICs and AVRs, etc do some things better than the Propeller... Making those comparisons is what moves the platform forward- especially when you're not just making general comparisons but actually discussing implementing software for the Propeller!
I'm proud to say that I use and enjoy the Propeller, 8, 16, and 32 bit PICs, the Arduino, AVRs in general, and Linux-capable ARMs- now that SparkFun has a board, I'll probably try out the XMOS as well. If that gets me banned, so be it. If the Propeller isn't a platform robust enough to withstand any discussion, debate, or comparisons then the investment I've made for it to become my primary MCU will have been for naught.
Maybe you missed them, but a lot of Leon's posts come pretty close to that, IMHO, which explains the "conspiracy theories" (as you put it).
Nick
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Never use force, just go for a bigger hammer!
The DIY Digital-Readout for mills, lathes etc.:
YADRO
In my small way I have invested a great deal of time and effort into the Prop. It now occupies a significant share of my remaining brain cells. So I can only hope it has a long and prosperous life.
I'm quite confident the Prop can stand comparisons on it's own two feet (Well 40 feet in my preferred case) and exploring ways of mixing and matching it with other devices with a view to exploiting the best features of both is no bad thing. "Leveraging synergy" and all that.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
The two chips can't really be compared; they are completely different in terms of facilities and performance, and are really intended for different markets. They don't compete in any way with each other, as I see it.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Spin vs C and XC
PASM vs horribly complicated instruction set designed for compiler writers.
Prop Tool vs Eclipse.
Serial programming vs JTAG nightmare.
Easy to use packages vs BGA's
Minimal circuit requirements (not even an XTAL to get started) vs having to by a $100 board to carry the chip.
Pins that can drive LEDS and VGA nicely vs pins that barely can.
Parallax itself, working on its own resources for the long haul vs XMOS working on venture capital that could dry up and leave everyone in the lurch (Think INMOS)
Etc, Etc.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
Nick
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Never use force, just go for a bigger hammer!
The DIY Digital-Readout for mills, lathes etc.:
YADRO
I thought it was about time I found out what I was talking about[noparse]:)[/noparse]
I've already determined that it is not possible to use those devices to build a CP/M computer smaller, cheaper, and less power hungry than with a Prop.
ZiCog rules, and on the Prop II it will rule even more[noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
C & XC are much faster and easier to use than Spin.
The XMOS assembler is just as easy to use as that of the Propeller (ask Ale).
XDE is a much more professional application than the Propeller Tool, and offers far more facilities. It also works under Linux and MACOS.
JTAG is an industry standard and offers debugging.
Some XMOS chips are in QFP. I'd like to see a DIL or QFP package with 512 pins.
A minimal XMOS circuit can be very simple - see the SFE board.
The XMOS chip can do VGA (ask Ale). The sort of applications it is used in don't need high current drivers.
Inmos was financed by the UK government, and it was ST that pulled the plug after buying the company. XMOS actually did their development on a shoestring, by industry standards, only taking two years from scratch with a very small team, and their chip is far more complex than the Propeller.
Plus
1600 MIPS vs 160 MIPS.
Hardware threads switching in one clock.
etc. etc.
I don't see why anyone wants to run a 30 year old OS on a 21st century chip. A $99 FPGA board with a Z80 emulated in hardware will run a lot faster, and can emulate lots of other chips and OSs. The XMOS chips don't need an OS for their intended applications.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 11/26/2009 9:23:37 PM GMT
Not very British!
I'll find out what the XMOS is better at and where the Prop is good at. I think (but don't know yet) that I will continue to use both. Including that 8-pin PIC 12F629 that I just put on a board for a stupid task.
And if I have to, I'll solder BGAs. Hand soldering 0603 doesn't frighten me at all, so I'll master a BGA too.
Nick
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Never use force, just go for a bigger hammer!
The DIY Digital-Readout for mills, lathes etc.:
YADRO
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 11/26/2009 9:46:20 PM GMT
I'm fairly certain that for someone who has never programmed before or who's major object in life is not programming Spin is much easier to get on with than C and XC. Think of high school kids or casual users who want to quickly do something.
Same for the assembler languages.
Same for the Prop tool vs Eclipse. Which by the way is not working correctly on my Debian box despite being written in "compile once run anywhere" Java. What a crock.
JTAG is an industry standard and a wonderful thing but that means nothing to the target group I'm considering here.
You may be right about the minimal circuit. However I doubt anything beats the DIP Prop hanging of a serial port on a bread board that I started my Prop exploration with.
As Ale said the XMOS only just has enough drive to do VGA. But think you know what I mean about current drive.
The point about INMOS was only to point out that there is a risk in basing your developments on a start-up product. As David May pointed out, users of the transputer in robotic applications are now having to scrape around for Transputers on ebay. Parallax has been around longer than INMOS was I think.
OK can't argue the speed case. Only that I'd rather drive a Range Rover in Lapland than a Ferrari.
So there are many comparisons to be made, different people and different applications will have different priorities.
Finally:
"I don't see why anyone wants to run a 30 year old OS on a 21st century chip."
Buggered if I know[noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 11/26/2009 9:48:36 PM GMT
C'mon guys - your recent posts make it clear that even if this was not your original intention, this thread is degenerating into an XMOS vs Prop ("my XC compiler is better than your SPIN compiler") kind of debate - which is exactly what many of us suspected might occur.
As mpark (and others, including myself) have pointed out, there is a fine line between making constructive criticism of the Prop by comparing it with another product, and using such a comparison to try and generate some interest in a competitors product amongst the Prop users who read these forums. You don't need a conspiracy theory to see that Leon's most recent posts in this thread have crossed that line. I also find them a bit discourteous his hosts here on these forums.
Parallax may feel constrained not to respond to such posts lest they be accused of "stifling debate" - but I have no such compunction. To quote the late great Douglas Adams “If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
[noparse]:)[/noparse]
Cheers, and happy turkey day everyone!
(goes off to program prop on well deserved days off)
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
Chat in real time with other Propellerheads on IRC #propeller @ freenode.net
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
I started this thread for discussion of the XProp system, but it seems to have degenerated into a "my chip is better than yours debate" started by someone who should know better - not by me.
If anyone wants to debate the relative merits of the XMOS chips and the Propeller, please start a new thread.
Leon
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Sorry heater, I am italian
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
· Propeller Object Exchange (last Publications / Updates);·· Vaati's custom search
As much as I might lust after a Ferrari, heck a Ducati would do me nobody makes machines as beautiful as the Italians do, I think if I had one it would stay at home during my trips to Lapland. I'd hate to think of it being crushed by moose, grounded on rocks, and buried under snow.
Anyway, enough of all this off topic rambling, this is my last post on this thread until I come up with something concrete to contribute. Honest...
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
As the owner of a couple of aforementioned pieces of two wheeled art I can confidently say the Italians make art, but the Germans make machines.
Germans seem to make their machines out of real metal that run pretty much forever, while the Italian mechanics appear to be made from cheese and I suspect they learned their electrical trade from the great Mr Lucas (prince of darkness). They do look incredible though (even when they are not moving - which is fortunate as that seems to happen not-infrequently).
Tamburini is a legend [noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.
The only thing I see here is a cult kool-aid drinkers mentality where certain folks flip out and get real nasty when someone brings up another micro in discussion. Especially the X chip which many see here as the enemy which for some reason must not mentioned at all. Shades of Lord Voldemort.
Look the Prop isn't the only micro out there and comparisons will be made no matter how badly you want to go Big Brother and silence folks who violate your or Heaters unwritten forum rules.
And what was Leon's crime? Attaching a Prop to the X chip and posting about it.
Just amazing.