I just recently bought my first Propeller board, having gotten interested in it only because it is the controller on my Elev-8 quadcopter. The board is a Quickstart, gotten at a good discount on ebay. It's a nice little board and seems like a good item to play around with. However, it now sits on the shelf. Why? Well, I'm busy playing with my Arduino's and my Teensy 3.1. The key is that they have so much software available, libraries and examples, that it is just so much easier. If you find a neat device you like, whether a display and IMU or whatever, there will be Arduino code to support it.
When I hooked up the Quickstart board and loaded the Propeller tool I went searching for example code. No examples accessible from the IDE. After rummaging around on Parallax's site I came up empty and so it sits on the shelf. No software - no interest.
I think the attraction of the Teensy is that is run Arduino code, mostly, and IDE. What a no-brainer! The Teensy guy, Paul S, works his tail off writing code for devices and the IDE to make sure the boards are usable.
I just recently bought my first Propeller board, having gotten interested in it only because it is the controller on my Elev-8 quadcopter. The board is a Quickstart, gotten at a good discount on ebay. It's a nice little board and seems like a good item to play around with. However, it now sits on the shelf. Why? Well, I'm busy playing with my Arduino's and my Teensy 3.1. The key is that they have so much software available, libraries and examples, that it is just so much easier. If you find a neat device you like, whether a display and IMU or whatever, there will be Arduino code to support it.
When I hooked up the Quickstart board and loaded the Propeller tool I went searching for example code. No examples accessible from the IDE. After rummaging around on Parallax's site I came up empty and so it sits on the shelf. No software - no interest.
I think the attraction of the Teensy is that is run Arduino code, mostly, and IDE. What a no-brainer! The Teensy guy, Paul S, works his tail off writing code for devices and the IDE to make sure the boards are usable.
I certainly can appreciate Ken Gracy's viewpoint, but I do have my own.
With what little I have done in C, C++ and GCC; I have pretty much learned that Propeller GCC is closer to what one might actually need to acquire as a career skill. Arduino is a version of C++ that pretty much make it easy for the user, but there is a tendency for such a user to wait for Arduino to develop a library before using something new and in a different manner.
Additionally, I am wary of too many platform that require specific and different solutions -- especially when teaching beginners. Sure, the vendor sells more as each alternative encourages purchase of yet another variation. But Parallax has tried to make its platforms as universal as possible, so that the user learns more about getting the most out of a microcontroller.
When you combine those two points together, I feel that the results are more appropriate for educational situations. There is nothing wrong with being a bit tight on resources as the learner truly learns to optimize what they have. This is education, not consumerism.
Arduino, the Raspberry Pi, and other boards have been very good for everyone as the market for add-on devices has grown more modular and diverse. So many of the extras for one can be used with any other. I have to say that is a win for all.. There is a lot to be learned through comparison and contrast.
I'd love to see more books in mainsteam bookstores on the Propeller. We have the Arduino and the Raspberry Pi sitting on retail shelves next to a lot of Maker publications in Chinese. But have yet to have any of the Propeller texts on the shelves.
There are plenty of Examples and Demos in the Propeller Tool. If you do a File > Open From, you get a choice of:
Propeller Library
Propeller Library - Demos
Help - Examples
PE Kit - Examples
Ah... so that's where they are! Hiding in plain sight. Might have to blow the dust off that thing after all.
Admittedly I didn't spend a lot of time with it. I did search "propeller quickstart example code " on Google. I didn't see anything particularly helpful (though it could have been there). Looked in help - didn't see anything there.
"Open From" was not at all obvious to me. If you know what's there, it make perfect sense.
I have no idea what Patrise is on about in reviving thins long lost thread
It's a posting bot in preparation for spamming. Don't feed it. Moderators should cancel the account before the post count gets higher.
But while on the subject, folks should consider that the Arduino is popular because people other than its developers saw it, and published about it. Banzi and the rest are no better at marketing than the next group of nerds. Yes, they had a good basic design, but they also got lucky, and have the nature of viral product adoption to thank.
You can't wait on luck, and until recently, I don't personally believe the Propeller was positioned for mass appeal. Three things have recently changed that: Propeller C, The Propeller Activity Board, and Simple IDE. Parallax is coming from a few lengths behind, but with good marketing and some well-placed sponsoring they'll hold their own. IMO, Parallax needs to show -- not just tell -- easily reproducible examples of how multi-core saves the little gray cells, and makes for better projects.
I have some things upcoming in SERVO that demonstrate why a Propeller is the better robot controller than an Arduino, and a few of you here know I've written about Arduino quite extensively over the years. So this comes from experience in practice, which I believe is what people need to see.
I continue to look at various Arduino products and every day they get a bit more appealing than what parallax is offering.
IMNSHO Parallax went off on a tangent from education with the multi-core and ended up with something only good for noisy multi-prop geek toys. It does not matter how much code they write for the thing as far as teachers are concerned it is still code written by someone else and does little to help students learn to write their own code. On top of that it requires them to learn a proprietary language. I do not believe they can spin the propeller enough to generate any real interest among educators.
On top of that it requires them to learn a proprietary language.
No longer true. See my earlier post about Propeller C and Simple IDE.
Publison, the posting may be legit, but what a waste of time (register, confirm, post) just to drop a name of an outfit that for 99.9% of readers is not local to them.
but there is a tendency for such a user to wait for Arduino to develop a library before using something new and in a different manner.
This is my observation, too. So many Arduino "programmers" are the copy-and-paste, "Where's the library for xxxx?" variety. It's easy to copy-and-pasted; programming requires actual thought and effort.
The smartest thing the Arduino developers did was team with O'Reilly -- that means coverage in every magazine and lots of books. One issue of Make even had the audacity to state that the Arduino "started the maker revolution." What? Sadly, most Arduino users have no idea that the BASIC Stamp paved the way for lots of clones (that died out). The Arduino is the only one to gain traction; again, I attribute that to their partnership with O'Reilly.
The BASIC Stamp has been used in education for years. In fact, I was at a local university last year and saw a group of EE students using BS2 boards and kits.
Other than the PE Kit and Propeller C there hasn't been much emphasis on education with the Propeller though I don't know whether that was intentional or just the way things worked out.
I myself only moved to the Propeller recently after using the BS2 for years. Andy's PE book made the transition a lot easier as well as the fact that Spin resembles PBASIC. I always found C awkward to program in and only use it if I must.
Around the time of the BASIC Stamp's creation an MIT professor created a robot controller board based around a 68HC11 called the Mini-Board which had analog, digital, motor, and communication ports. Like the Arduino it has a library and could be programmed in C as well as native assembly language. Remember though these were back in the DOS days so there were no fancy GUI IDEs. A few years later he created another more advanced board called the Handy-Board.
I used the Mini-Board in an Automation class along with a PLC (ugh!).
Last fall I took an EE class and every speaker said to learn C and Arduino. Many also mentioned the Beagle Board though I rarely see it mentioned here. I don't think the Raspberry Pi was mentioned even though it's talked about here just after the Arduino.
Jon, it's funny that you mention Arduino people are always asking for libraries to use, because when people ask how do I use something with the Propeller someone always responds to use this or that object from OBEX. Sometimes I look at the objects and the code there is so simple that someone could had just added a Private Method to their program.
OTOH, I see interest in the publishing field fading for the Arduino. This is only natural as the product matures. Of the top 20 "robotics" books on Amazon only two are on the Arduino -- and these are the solid general-interest titles that are not project-specific. One is from O'Reilly; the other from No Starch Press (Jon, if you ever have the chance to write a book for Bill Pollock at No Starch, do it. He's almost as crazy as you are! <g> He would love your out-of-the-box thinking).
This differs greatly from even two years ago, where Arduino books were everywhere. The publishing world is moving on, and with them, readers and projects for the platform. People want something new. So I think we've seen the heyday of the Arduino Uno projects -- not that there won't be anymore, but IMO not in the numbers we've seen. The focus will be on the 32-bit processors like Raspberry Pi, BeagleBone, and Arduino Due.
I note the Propeller is a 32-bit processor. Let's hope Parallax can capture this wind of change with the several changes they've made in the Propeller product mix. I would also hope that they don't leave the Activity Board as a reference design. It is VERY important to maintain consistency. Boards that come and go are not helpful.
Gordon, there is a definite need for Propeller texts especially on Propeller Assembly and perhaps video. Video is the one area where the Propeller leaves the Arduino in the dust.
Parallax was once a big frog in a small pond -- a great place to be, marketwise. I believe that the introduction of the Propeller and the initial attention given to Spin/PASM, along with continuous improvements to the Propeller Tool, could have cemented that position for years to come, had it remained their central focus. But, sadly, I think that Parallax has taken its eye off the prize. Trying to compete head-on with the flash-in-the-pan, non-profit Arduino, combined with placating educator's misplaced insistence on C, not to mention the ambition to be a significant semiconductor player with the P2, has rendered the company a small frog in a very big pond. That's a really tough place to be -- especially in a still-recovering economy.
That said, however, given my almost constant interaction with Parallax -- especially with Ken -- I know that, even though Parallax may have lost its way to some extent, it certainly has not lost its soul. It's still a great company, trying to do the right thing for its customers and its employees alike. But if I were CEO (without family ties), and with an eye on corporate growth and the bottom line, this is what I would do:
1. Can the P2 project altogether. It's a drain on the company's resources, and the market in which Parallax has been strongest simply doesn't need it. The P1 is a great chip, with legs to last for years!
2. Continue with the C "Learn" currriculum (it's great!), but refashion it as a gateway to Spin/PASM with an emphasis on programming principles, rather than as a vocational language course. For example, for every C example, perhaps also show how it could be done in Spin. IOW, lead the educators gently by example.
3. Emphasize Spin/PASM in doc development, advertising, and marketing. Make it a buzzword that people want to know more about, rather than shrinking under the cover of C.
4. Forget about the Arduino, Raspberry Pi, and others of their ilk. Parallax cannot compete head-to-head against non-profit products. Nobody can.
5. Maintain full proprietary control over the Propeller design. The BS2 firmware used to be the company jewels; now its the Prop. Don't ever give it away.
6. Basically, lead like the company Parallax used to be, rather than following the latest trends. IOW, create the trends that others want to follow -- again.
I know this is heretical stuff and, as a part-time Parallax supplier, I'm really sticking my neck out saying these things. But these are things I've thought about a lot (since my own income depends upon it) and come firmly to believe, as I've observed Parallax's recent morphology. I know Ken will have some things to say about this, and I welcome his take on my comments. Believe me, nothing is meant to be personal, and I pray that any ensuing discussion will remain focused on issues alone. I only say these things because I love Parallax and desperately want them to succeed.
Anyway, that's may take from the outside looking in. I'm sure things look different from the insdie looking out ...
Parallax was once a big frog in a small pond -- a great place to be in the marketwise. I believe that the introduction of the Propeller and the initial attention given to Spin/PASM, along with continuous improvements to the Propeller Tool, could have cemented that position for years to come, had it remained their central focus. But, sadly, I think that Parallax has taken its eye off the prize. Trying to compete head-on with the flash-in-the-pan, non-profit Arduino, combined with placating educator's misplaced insistence on C, not to mention a desire to be a significant semiconductor player with the P2, has rendered the company a small frog in a very big pond. That's a really tough place to be -- especially in a still-recovering economy.
If the largest part of your market is education and education demands certain features in your product how can you succeed if you deny them those features? I think Parallax spent a lot of time promoting Spin and PASM and still lost market share in their biggest market. How *should* they have dealt with that if not to give their customers what they were asking for? Redoubled their efforts to convince educators to accept Spin? I guess that was Apple's philosophy. They always thought the knew better than their customers and sometimes they were right. I wonder how many companies can get away with that?
I know what you're saying, and your'e not wrong. My approach would be to give them what they think they want but, while doing so, show them a better way, as illustrated in my point in #2 above. IOW, there's no need to preach if you can be an effective witness.
As an aside ... I needed a timer for a 12VDC pump that would run it a couple of times a day for roughly a half hour. I happen to have two Prop-1 controllers on hand that use a BS1, can run off 12V, and have a ULN2803 Darlington array built-in. They're perfect for the job. I had originally planned on using an eTape fluid level sensor to trigger the pump, but it won't fit in the tank. The Prop-1 would have worked perfectly for that as well and it took 10 minutes to adapt the program and download it. I could have used a BS2 or Propeller or an Arduino for that matter since I have all of them, but the Prop-1 was the perfect board for the job with the right parts and connectors on it.
As others have mentioned before, unless you really want to build your own board, which microcontroller is "best" depends on what board is available or can be easily adapted for the job as well as how easy it might be to write (and debug) the control program needed given the complexity and features needed for the program.
I know what you're saying, and your'e not wrong. My approach would be to give them what they think they want but, while doing so, show them a better way, as illustrated in my point in #2 above.
-Phil
This is probably where we disagree. While I won't claim that C is the best possible language, I don't think Spin adds much and it is missing a lot as well. I'd rather take a bigger step toward a better language. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Spin. I just don't think it is enough different from C to be called a "better way" and in addition it is non-standard and can't be used on anything other than the Propeller.
I know this is point upon which we shall perpetually disagree, so there's no use in pumping further energy into it. My approach to programming is more "liberal arts" than "vocational," so the language I choose is the one that makes me most productive, not what will get me a job outside the Parallax dome.
I know this is point upon which we shall perpetually disagree, so there's no use in pumping further energy into it. My approach to programming is more "liberal arts" than "vocational," so the language I choose is the one that makes me most productive, not what will get me a job outside the Parallax dome.
-Phil
It certainly makes sense to use the language in which you are most productive. Also, I'm a believer in the idea that you can learn programming in one language and get a job programming in another language. The concepts should transfer from one language to another. Of course, those doing the hiring these days don't seem to believe that. That is the problem.
It certainly makes sense to use the language in which you are most productive. Also, I'm a believer in the idea that you can learn programming in one language and get a job programming in another language. The concepts should transfer from one language to another. Of course, those doing the hiring these days don't seem to believe that. That is the problem.
Sorry for commenting on my own message but the more I think of it the less sense this makes. What if I was applying for a job as a writer for a Spanish magazine and I pointed out in my interview that I am very proficient in writing in English and that, after all, Spanish is just another language and that the concepts of communications are the same so there is no reason I should't be hired to write for an Spanish publication. While it is probably true that I could learn to communicate in Spanish as well as I do already in English, that would take time and maybe the magazine needs someone who can be productive immediately. I imagine that someone who knows Spin or even C could become fluent in C++ but it would take time and an employer probably needs someone who can be productive more immediately. How do you address that problem?
Oh boy, I find myself disagreeing with nearly every one of your points:
1. Can the P2 project altogether...
Ahhhggg..nooo...The P1 is a great chip. All we needed was a bigger faster one. The P1 has legs for years but only in the tiny niche market that it occupies now. Which will shrink in time as the world is flooded with 20 cent 32 bit MCUs
2. Continue with the C "Learn" currriculum (it's great!), but refashion it as a gateway to Spin/PASM...
I see it the other way around. Spin should be retired. The world at large does not want to go there. Spin is a one off language for a one off chip. It does not do anything that cannot be done as easily in C/C++ as the Arduino demonstrates. It is too limited.
That of course leaves a problem because you can't fit much C code into a Propeller. Bring on the P2.
"Leading the educators by example" is not going to happen. Spin is a dead end.
3. ...Make it [ Spin ]a buzzword that people want to know more about,...
Never going to happen.
5. Maintain full proprietary control over the Propeller design. The BS2 firmware used to be the company jewels; now its the Prop. Don't ever give it away.
You could publish the designs for the Propeller chip tomorrow and I don't believe anyone anywhere is going to be fabing it any time soon. Like ever.
I personally think the best thing to happen would be if the PII was launched, ASAP, and the very same day sufficient VHDL was open sourced to allow cloning of the P1.
That would be radical and catch the attention of many in this "open source", "open hardware" world.
You could publish the designs for the Propeller chip tomorrow and I don't believe anyone anywhere is going to be fabing it any time soon. Like ever.
I personally think the best thing to happen would be if the PII was launched, ASAP, and the very same day sufficient VHDL was open sourced to allow cloning of the P1.
That would be radical and catch the attention of many in this "open source", "open hardware" world.
Oh, dear lord, no..
I'm all for Open Source, and Open Hardware, but the number of semi-compatible, altered versions of the Propeller chip that would be possible in that situation makes me shutter.
Do you really think there are hundreds of people/companies around the world just waiting, salivating at the prospect of cloning a Propeller chip?
Get real, nobody has ever even heard of it. And the market is so small, nobody would bother.
On the other hand, it can happen that clones actually grow the market, more people can get the thing, network effects happen, more people hear about and want the thing. For example if the market grew by a factor of four and the cloners take half of it then the original is still selling twice as much as it otherwise would have.
All I see happening is that a dedicated few would blow the Propeller HDL into their FPGA's and perhaps modify them to be semi-compatible. So what? They are not going to sell, an FPGA is much bigger, more expensive, more complex to use, and power hungry that the actual chip.
For sure keep a tight rein on the branding. Absolutely disagree with the language deviation restriction. I presume you mean the instruction set and perhaps Spin interpreter. Open source must be open source.
A long time ago Intel wanted to sell micro-processors. One of biggest market possibilities for such things was the military. But they used to be very fussy about wanting more than a single source of supply for any of their parts.
So Intel licensed the designs to AMD. Now there were two sources. The military could now buy billions of x86 parts. Everybody did well.
Having clones around can be very beneficial. I believe this kind of network effect has helped the Arduino dominate the landscape.
I have no feelings toward Spin other than thinking it hasn't helped the Propeller make its way into the education markets, which aside from commercial applications is probably the largest segment out there. Education needs a forward path, and a lone language just doesn't cut it these days. They don't teach Latin in schools any more for the same reason (as helpful as it is to writers, linguists, and others).
Agree Spin shouldn't be orphaned, but in a world with limited resources, can Parallax really afford to dual-track examples and code for everything they do?
Jon mentioned how O'Reilly helped Arduino get the foothold. That wasn't just a gift from Tim, but an implicit belief the platform would have longevity, because the reference designs were there to stay. The Arduino guys proved that by the example they led; the Uno is basically the same form factor they've had from the beginning.
So I again return to the notion that Parallax needs to stick with their main boards --and list them FIRST on the catalog page. Demonstrate their importance. Why, oh why, is the PropCam the first item listed when you click on the link for Microcontroller-Propeller? (Yes, I know it's by release date, but that shouldn't be the default, but if it has to be, start with a row of "staff picks," to make sure the company's primary products are always on the forefront.) By not implicitly promoting the main boards Parallax is not giving their customers -- or authors -- a notion of product hierarchy.
Comments
When I hooked up the Quickstart board and loaded the Propeller tool I went searching for example code. No examples accessible from the IDE. After rummaging around on Parallax's site I came up empty and so it sits on the shelf. No software - no interest.
I think the attraction of the Teensy is that is run Arduino code, mostly, and IDE. What a no-brainer! The Teensy guy, Paul S, works his tail off writing code for devices and the IDE to make sure the boards are usable.
-Russ
OBEX is your friend http://obex.parallax.com/
There are plenty of Examples and Demos in the Propeller Tool. If you do a File > Open From, you get a choice of:
Propeller Library
Propeller Library - Demos
Help - Examples
PE Kit - Examples
With what little I have done in C, C++ and GCC; I have pretty much learned that Propeller GCC is closer to what one might actually need to acquire as a career skill. Arduino is a version of C++ that pretty much make it easy for the user, but there is a tendency for such a user to wait for Arduino to develop a library before using something new and in a different manner.
Additionally, I am wary of too many platform that require specific and different solutions -- especially when teaching beginners. Sure, the vendor sells more as each alternative encourages purchase of yet another variation. But Parallax has tried to make its platforms as universal as possible, so that the user learns more about getting the most out of a microcontroller.
When you combine those two points together, I feel that the results are more appropriate for educational situations. There is nothing wrong with being a bit tight on resources as the learner truly learns to optimize what they have. This is education, not consumerism.
Arduino, the Raspberry Pi, and other boards have been very good for everyone as the market for add-on devices has grown more modular and diverse. So many of the extras for one can be used with any other. I have to say that is a win for all.. There is a lot to be learned through comparison and contrast.
I'd love to see more books in mainsteam bookstores on the Propeller. We have the Arduino and the Raspberry Pi sitting on retail shelves next to a lot of Maker publications in Chinese. But have yet to have any of the Propeller texts on the shelves.
Ah... so that's where they are! Hiding in plain sight. Might have to blow the dust off that thing after all.
Admittedly I didn't spend a lot of time with it. I did search "propeller quickstart example code " on Google. I didn't see anything particularly helpful (though it could have been there). Looked in help - didn't see anything there.
"Open From" was not at all obvious to me. If you know what's there, it make perfect sense.
Anyway - thanks for the tip...
-Russ
It's a posting bot in preparation for spamming. Don't feed it. Moderators should cancel the account before the post count gets higher.
But while on the subject, folks should consider that the Arduino is popular because people other than its developers saw it, and published about it. Banzi and the rest are no better at marketing than the next group of nerds. Yes, they had a good basic design, but they also got lucky, and have the nature of viral product adoption to thank.
You can't wait on luck, and until recently, I don't personally believe the Propeller was positioned for mass appeal. Three things have recently changed that: Propeller C, The Propeller Activity Board, and Simple IDE. Parallax is coming from a few lengths behind, but with good marketing and some well-placed sponsoring they'll hold their own. IMO, Parallax needs to show -- not just tell -- easily reproducible examples of how multi-core saves the little gray cells, and makes for better projects.
I have some things upcoming in SERVO that demonstrate why a Propeller is the better robot controller than an Arduino, and a few of you here know I've written about Arduino quite extensively over the years. So this comes from experience in practice, which I believe is what people need to see.
IMNSHO Parallax went off on a tangent from education with the multi-core and ended up with something only good for noisy multi-prop geek toys. It does not matter how much code they write for the thing as far as teachers are concerned it is still code written by someone else and does little to help students learn to write their own code. On top of that it requires them to learn a proprietary language. I do not believe they can spin the propeller enough to generate any real interest among educators.
Gordon,
It's on my watch list.
Simple IP search indicates San Jose. But the quot
It does sound a little suspicious.
No longer true. See my earlier post about Propeller C and Simple IDE.
Publison, the posting may be legit, but what a waste of time (register, confirm, post) just to drop a name of an outfit that for 99.9% of readers is not local to them.
This is my observation, too. So many Arduino "programmers" are the copy-and-paste, "Where's the library for xxxx?" variety. It's easy to copy-and-pasted; programming requires actual thought and effort.
The smartest thing the Arduino developers did was team with O'Reilly -- that means coverage in every magazine and lots of books. One issue of Make even had the audacity to state that the Arduino "started the maker revolution." What? Sadly, most Arduino users have no idea that the BASIC Stamp paved the way for lots of clones (that died out). The Arduino is the only one to gain traction; again, I attribute that to their partnership with O'Reilly.
... and the Arduino itself.
Other than the PE Kit and Propeller C there hasn't been much emphasis on education with the Propeller though I don't know whether that was intentional or just the way things worked out.
I myself only moved to the Propeller recently after using the BS2 for years. Andy's PE book made the transition a lot easier as well as the fact that Spin resembles PBASIC. I always found C awkward to program in and only use it if I must.
Around the time of the BASIC Stamp's creation an MIT professor created a robot controller board based around a 68HC11 called the Mini-Board which had analog, digital, motor, and communication ports. Like the Arduino it has a library and could be programmed in C as well as native assembly language. Remember though these were back in the DOS days so there were no fancy GUI IDEs. A few years later he created another more advanced board called the Handy-Board.
I used the Mini-Board in an Automation class along with a PLC (ugh!).
Last fall I took an EE class and every speaker said to learn C and Arduino. Many also mentioned the Beagle Board though I rarely see it mentioned here. I don't think the Raspberry Pi was mentioned even though it's talked about here just after the Arduino.
Jon, it's funny that you mention Arduino people are always asking for libraries to use, because when people ask how do I use something with the Propeller someone always responds to use this or that object from OBEX. Sometimes I look at the objects and the code there is so simple that someone could had just added a Private Method to their program.
This differs greatly from even two years ago, where Arduino books were everywhere. The publishing world is moving on, and with them, readers and projects for the platform. People want something new. So I think we've seen the heyday of the Arduino Uno projects -- not that there won't be anymore, but IMO not in the numbers we've seen. The focus will be on the 32-bit processors like Raspberry Pi, BeagleBone, and Arduino Due.
I note the Propeller is a 32-bit processor. Let's hope Parallax can capture this wind of change with the several changes they've made in the Propeller product mix. I would also hope that they don't leave the Activity Board as a reference design. It is VERY important to maintain consistency. Boards that come and go are not helpful.
That said, however, given my almost constant interaction with Parallax -- especially with Ken -- I know that, even though Parallax may have lost its way to some extent, it certainly has not lost its soul. It's still a great company, trying to do the right thing for its customers and its employees alike. But if I were CEO (without family ties), and with an eye on corporate growth and the bottom line, this is what I would do:
2. Continue with the C "Learn" currriculum (it's great!), but refashion it as a gateway to Spin/PASM with an emphasis on programming principles, rather than as a vocational language course. For example, for every C example, perhaps also show how it could be done in Spin. IOW, lead the educators gently by example.
3. Emphasize Spin/PASM in doc development, advertising, and marketing. Make it a buzzword that people want to know more about, rather than shrinking under the cover of C.
4. Forget about the Arduino, Raspberry Pi, and others of their ilk. Parallax cannot compete head-to-head against non-profit products. Nobody can.
5. Maintain full proprietary control over the Propeller design. The BS2 firmware used to be the company jewels; now its the Prop. Don't ever give it away.
6. Basically, lead like the company Parallax used to be, rather than following the latest trends. IOW, create the trends that others want to follow -- again.
I know this is heretical stuff and, as a part-time Parallax supplier, I'm really sticking my neck out saying these things. But these are things I've thought about a lot (since my own income depends upon it) and come firmly to believe, as I've observed Parallax's recent morphology. I know Ken will have some things to say about this, and I welcome his take on my comments. Believe me, nothing is meant to be personal, and I pray that any ensuing discussion will remain focused on issues alone. I only say these things because I love Parallax and desperately want them to succeed.
Anyway, that's may take from the outside looking in. I'm sure things look different from the insdie looking out ...
With utmost respect,
-Phil
I know what you're saying, and your'e not wrong. My approach would be to give them what they think they want but, while doing so, show them a better way, as illustrated in my point in #2 above. IOW, there's no need to preach if you can be an effective witness.
-Phil
As others have mentioned before, unless you really want to build your own board, which microcontroller is "best" depends on what board is available or can be easily adapted for the job as well as how easy it might be to write (and debug) the control program needed given the complexity and features needed for the program.
I know this is point upon which we shall perpetually disagree, so there's no use in pumping further energy into it. My approach to programming is more "liberal arts" than "vocational," so the language I choose is the one that makes me most productive, not what will get me a job outside the Parallax dome.
-Phil
Oh boy, I find myself disagreeing with nearly every one of your points: Ahhhggg..nooo...The P1 is a great chip. All we needed was a bigger faster one. The P1 has legs for years but only in the tiny niche market that it occupies now. Which will shrink in time as the world is flooded with 20 cent 32 bit MCUs I see it the other way around. Spin should be retired. The world at large does not want to go there. Spin is a one off language for a one off chip. It does not do anything that cannot be done as easily in C/C++ as the Arduino demonstrates. It is too limited.
That of course leaves a problem because you can't fit much C code into a Propeller. Bring on the P2.
"Leading the educators by example" is not going to happen. Spin is a dead end. Never going to happen. You could publish the designs for the Propeller chip tomorrow and I don't believe anyone anywhere is going to be fabing it any time soon. Like ever.
I personally think the best thing to happen would be if the PII was launched, ASAP, and the very same day sufficient VHDL was open sourced to allow cloning of the P1.
That would be radical and catch the attention of many in this "open source", "open hardware" world.
-Phil
Oh, dear lord, no..
I'm all for Open Source, and Open Hardware, but the number of semi-compatible, altered versions of the Propeller chip that would be possible in that situation makes me shutter.
Why?
Do you really think there are hundreds of people/companies around the world just waiting, salivating at the prospect of cloning a Propeller chip?
Get real, nobody has ever even heard of it. And the market is so small, nobody would bother.
On the other hand, it can happen that clones actually grow the market, more people can get the thing, network effects happen, more people hear about and want the thing. For example if the market grew by a factor of four and the cloners take half of it then the original is still selling twice as much as it otherwise would have.
All I see happening is that a dedicated few would blow the Propeller HDL into their FPGA's and perhaps modify them to be semi-compatible. So what? They are not going to sell, an FPGA is much bigger, more expensive, more complex to use, and power hungry that the actual chip.
A few decades ago, the Apple ][ computer was allowed to be cloned under restriction. Because of the restrictions, the software was compatible.
A long time ago Intel wanted to sell micro-processors. One of biggest market possibilities for such things was the military. But they used to be very fussy about wanting more than a single source of supply for any of their parts.
So Intel licensed the designs to AMD. Now there were two sources. The military could now buy billions of x86 parts. Everybody did well.
Having clones around can be very beneficial. I believe this kind of network effect has helped the Arduino dominate the landscape.
Agree Spin shouldn't be orphaned, but in a world with limited resources, can Parallax really afford to dual-track examples and code for everything they do?
Jon mentioned how O'Reilly helped Arduino get the foothold. That wasn't just a gift from Tim, but an implicit belief the platform would have longevity, because the reference designs were there to stay. The Arduino guys proved that by the example they led; the Uno is basically the same form factor they've had from the beginning.
So I again return to the notion that Parallax needs to stick with their main boards --and list them FIRST on the catalog page. Demonstrate their importance. Why, oh why, is the PropCam the first item listed when you click on the link for Microcontroller-Propeller? (Yes, I know it's by release date, but that shouldn't be the default, but if it has to be, start with a row of "staff picks," to make sure the company's primary products are always on the forefront.) By not implicitly promoting the main boards Parallax is not giving their customers -- or authors -- a notion of product hierarchy.