I think what hurt the Prop in getting corporate acceptance is that when it came out it had none of the software tools developers came to expect when a new micro hit the streets.
It lacked a C compiler, the debugger was non-existent and in their place it had a weird one of kind interpretive language. Basically no HLL support(not that C is really a HLL)
That wasn't a good way to win acceptance in the corporate world.
Bad first impression IMO.
But LMM fixed that in time.
That said, the Prop has to compete with every other 32bit micro out there for corporate attention.
That means you got about 4 comparison points chip wise.
1) Price. In large quantities the Prop is comparable to the PIC32, AVR32, Coldfire and ARM variants. In the 16 bit world the Prop isn't price competitive but it can compensate for this due to its 8 cores to a large extent.
2) Performance. Brute strength wise most of the other 32bitters can beat the Prop cogs no problem. Prop's strength it has 8 cores it can throw at a problem. I think the Prop can really shine on applications where memory requirements are low but need a lot of processing power(PASM).
3) Software support. Currently the Prop has a assembler, Image Craft C and a debugger.
The lack of debugging capabilities is a real issue, in my mind. There is nothing like stopping everything, finding the variable or struct you want to see, and looking at it.
I chose a microchip product for a project of mine for these reasons -
sufficient IO in one package
256k program memory with 16k ram (a few fonts for an lcd can eat up 16k in a heartbeat)
FWIW, some PICs don't have on-chip debug hardware, to reduce cost. For debugging, Microchip sells header boards with a special version of the chip with debug hardware and a connector for the ICD 3 debugger which plugs into a socket on the target board. They aren't expensive. Perhaps Parallax should have done something similar.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Erik Friesen said...
The lack of debugging capabilities is a real issue, in my mind. There is nothing like stopping everything, finding the variable or struct you want to see, and looking at it.
Howdy,
I'm a tool man, so the most important thing for me are good tools.
I stumbled on the Propeller 5 years ago when there was just the Propeller "Tool". It provided an editor for yet another new language, a compiler without support for multiple directories, defines, etc.., flaky terminal support via HyperTerminal, and no debugger.
How far we've come since then!
I'm now programming in a single editor that supports C, Spin and Pasm. My projects are split into separate directories with compiler options to support my different hardware setups. I have all sorts of debugging tools- both graphical and breakpoint/step...
Hanno
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Co-author of the official Propeller Guide- available at Amazon
Developer of ViewPort, the premier visual debugger for the Propeller (read the review here, thread here), 12Blocks, the block-based programming environment (thread here)
and PropScope, the multi-function USB oscilloscope/function generator/logic analyzer
With other MCUs, a free debugger is usually built-in to the manufacturer's IDE, and works with both assembler and C programs, in conjunction with the hardware development tools.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Erik,
LMM cannot be made native because the hardware doesn't support it. Please look at Bill Henning's original thread for an explanation of how it works. It's essentially a very fast interpreter that executes native instructions in-line by copying them into the cog's memory one at a time while interpreting some other instructions, particularly those involving flow-of-control (jumps, calls, etc.).
Yes, but given the resources that Parallax has in house, it problably was not possible to do all the software support that other larger companies can do.·But a few great people have stepped up and provided good great tools at a modest price, and some very good tools for free.
Jim
Leon said...
With other MCUs, a free debugger is usually built-in to the manufacturer's IDE, and works with both assembler and C programs, in conjunction with the hardware development tools.
NOT all MCU's suport free TOOLS some have cheap BreakBoards BUT very expensive TOOLS/Debugging software. Free Tools only one month and after that only demo that are not usable for advanced programing.
Regards
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ Nothing is impossible, there are only different degrees of difficulty. For every stupid question there is at least one intelligent answer. Don't guess - ask instead. If you don't ask you won't know. If your gonna construct something, make it·as simple as·possible yet as versatile as posible.
I think having published projects that use the Propeller is the best thing.
Personally, I needed VGA output and precise timing and it was a choice between FPGA and the Prop, and I picked the Prop because it was a lot easier.
BTW: For fun, try googling "Propeller railgun battery"
Microchip (the market leader in 8-bit MCUs) supplies free tools for all their chips, as does Atmel for the AVR. Free tools are often available for other devices, even if the manufacturer charges a lot for their software.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Leon, Microchip's 8-bit MCUs are interesting because of their very low price point and small size. I think "free" tools is only a major benefit to hobbyists really.
But, the Propeller is in a completely different class. It's more comparible to Microchip's 32-bit offerings.
And the thought of trying to do VGA output plus juggle a couple other time critical apps with a PIC is painful...
So, really a FPGA is the only single-chip competetor to the Prop for the kind of apps I'm mostly interested in.
I agree with Rayman. We use tens of thousands of "Another Microcontroller" per year where I work. We do not use the free toolsets available for that microcontroller. It is great that such free tools are available (as anyone would reasonably expect them to be!) and they are perfectly adequate for encouraging experimentation by hobbyists. They may even facilitate the microcontroller's adoption for commercial purpose (managers love it when their engineers tell them all the tools they will need are available for free!).
But the reality is that these tools are often not adequate for professional use - most companies I know eventaully proceed to buying the tools they need for production use - either from the microcontroller manufacturer, or (more often) from a third party that specializes in such tools.
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
However, to get the Propeller accepted by design engineers some free tools will have to be provided even if they subsequently decide to spend money on professional software.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Hanno said...
How far we've come since then!
I'm now programming in a single editor that supports C, Spin and Pasm. My projects are split into separate directories with compiler options to support my different hardware setups. I have all sorts of debugging tools- both graphical and breakpoint/step...
Hanno
I gave it a quick try, but became frustrated, and I'll take the blame for not figuring it out. However, It takes an understanding of what you are doing, and setting it up, where a hardware debugger is plug and play with no "cog" requirement.
Mike Green said...
Erik,
LMM cannot be made native because the hardware doesn't support it. Please look at Bill Henning's original thread for an explanation of how it works. It's essentially a very fast interpreter that executes native instructions in-line by copying them into the cog's memory one at a time while interpreting some other instructions, particularly those involving flow-of-control (jumps, calls, etc.).
I don't totally understand lmm, however, my point is that there are times when 496 longs is hardly sufficient. The alternative is lmm, which at this point the only way to use it without contortions is using C. However, you face a quite a performance penalty by doing so. If there were a way to inline assembly within a spin program, it would go a long way towards alleviating the issue.
hover1 said...
Debugging tools don't always have to be free. People have been paying $49.00 for the SX-Key for debugging for a long time.
I paid good money for an icd3, and would be willing to do the same for the propeller.
I like the propeller, I think it is a great product, it is just that for now with the prop1 it can't fit every situation. I suppose in time it will be like the extended basic stamps. This "gentle" pressure different people apply on these topics may eventually bare fruit in some way.
I would have to question the rationale for a hardware company to be selling dev tools for their products. Companies that do that seem not to understand which business they're in. If you're selling hardware, the entry ramp -- as well as the highway beyond -- needs to be free to attract and keep customers. King Gillette understood this: "Give away the razor so you can sell the blades." Inkjet printer companies have bought into this successful marketing ploy, too, creating a huge market for more-expensive-than-Chanel printer ink. Any hardware company who can't give away the dev tools so they can sell the chips has simply got it wrong. And if an independent company develops better dev tools than what the hardware company offers, it's in the hardware company's interests either to co-opt or independently to best those tools and offer them for free. This is especially true of Parallax, who has limited resources for creating dev tools in-house. Tollbooths are are no less a disincentive to adoption than are out-and-out roadblocks.
-Phil
Post Edited (Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)) : 7/16/2010 2:08:59 AM GMT
Erik Friesen said...
I don't totally understand lmm, however, my point is that there are times when 496 longs is hardly sufficient. The alternative is lmm, which at this point the only way to use it without contortions is using C. However, you face a quite a performance penalty by doing so. If there were a way to inline assembly within a spin program, it would go a long way towards alleviating the issue.
@Erik
Dave Hein recently committed work to OBEX that allows using LMM in-line with Spin. Look here.
hover1 said...
Yes, but given the resources that Parallax has in house, it problably was not possible to do all the software support that other larger companies can do. But a few great people have stepped up and provided good great tools at a modest price, and some very good tools for free.
These aren't selling points because it puts too much burden of responsibility on the community. If Parallax lacks resources, then they should add more. If they can't afford to do so, they need to keep operations at a sustainable level until they can.
MHHMM, coming from somebody who has used a few other micros, i must say the propeller seems to be the best one yet. I don't think Parallax is marketing the Propeller towards companies. It seems to be a exclusive hobbyist tool. Have we asked Parallax why they made the Propeller? Have we asked them why? we are never gonna know until they tell us. If they intended it to be used by designers, i think their whole approach would have been different. I will say one more thing, though. Parallax must do something to curb this "Arduino" craze. Arduino is being recognized everywhere as the official starter micro. The basic stamp's best days might be coming to a screeching halt. There was a article in Wired magazine comparing the Arduino to another system. THEY DIDN'T even mention the basic stamp, but rather compared the Arduino to a beagle board. Parallax needs a cash cow right now just to stay afloat. I hope the Prop 2 will be just the ticket. Powerful enough to be used by business and yet still enjoy popularity with the hobbyists.
Due to the 496 long limit, and the Spin interpreter using it, there is no way other than LMM to in-line assembly in Spin, at least not in the same cog.
"What specs will entice design engineers to investigate the prop ?" Leon: You have successfully hijacked another thread !!!
So if you must. I can make the prop do things your favourite Xmos chip cannot do. I can do things with a prop cheaper than an Intel i5. Is this really relevant? Specifically it is not to THIS thread.
Your comments have not gone unnoticed and they are not appreciated by others too! Please leave the forum.
A lot happened overnight... (My responses are in order of posting)
@potatohead: Your comments about design influences are spot on. Intel won out on it's 8088 (8086 family) for the PC design by IBM over Motorola and it's 68000. Why? Not because it was better. Not because it was cheaper. But because IBM could buy (and did) a slice of Intel and felt more secure they could influence Intel. How about that for facts.
Another fact is that volume of those other chips (PIC) are already well into their life cycle so they will not reduce much in price from here. However, the Prop has significant·potential to lower the price·here if Parallax could get the volume up. You won't necessarily see much on your DIP chip, but this is not the volume for Parallax anyway. I am sure (think it's been said anyway) that the QFP (and QFN??) is subsidising the DIP.
There is a definite bias with design engineers. They always have their favourites, so we need to get the Prop to be a favourite.
Around 1985 I designed our (NetComm in Australia) first PC modem. I had a choice of a MC68705U3S or Z8 (Z8681). I was experienced in both but liked the Motorola better. It was $8 cheaper (BOM & Production cost) although the Z8 micro was actually cheaper than the Motorola micro. I had an argument with my partner that the Motorola did not have enough long term power for the next generation modems which I agreed. However I said that I could do a translator program to convert the motorola code to the Z8 in a few days later·when the need for the more powerful processor arose. We sold over 70,000 before the time came for the Z8. I wrote the converter program and had the code running in under two days. Translation: I was more comfortable with the motorola as I had some modem code already running, and $0.5M profit straight to the bottom line. Did you note the motorola was a more expensive micro! BTW selling price was huge - beginning of the bell curve.
Here is another real life design example. I designed a centronics·interface to an ICL minicomputer (~1981) and sold to ICL. It was a tiny pcb ~2"x3" and used a pair of the newly sampled MC68705P3S at $150 each !!! There were also 2 74xx and 2 transistors and a Coil on the pcb. My pcb plugged inside the printer and it replaced a ginormous pcb which came in it's own box ~24"x18"x6" and cost >$2,000. It used a cheap micro maybe worth ~$30. BTW a centronics printer was worth ~$5,000 or ICL's ~$10,000. Assembly was extremely simple, failures almost non-existent. I was still selling them for the same price 7 years later, even though (hope no ICL'ers reading this) the motorola chips came down to $8 ea. A reverse bell curve because it was a closed market.
Another thing here is that I could have done it much cheaper with a single conventional micro (motorola 6802) with more parts but still fit it into the space allowed. I chose to use two expensive single chip micros (internal 1.7KB eeprom) because I could seperate the code into two simple and distinct threads, one for the printer, one for the ICL. It made coding simpler and quicker time to market.
So, have you realised I liked Motorola/Freescale - until I discovered the Prop that is. And, do you see why I use multiple props?
There are valid points (even cited by Leon) that documentation,·tools, etc are lacking.·We have·said that clearly on other threads·so I am certain Parallax are acutely aware of this. We have seen some indicators they are trying to work on this.
Leon said...
I don't know about that. I once worked on a Propeller-based project which was an ideal fit for the device. Unfortunately, we were only given about two weeks to deliver a working prototype, and all I was able to do in that time was show all the various functions running on their own cogs. They still needed integrating, and the company involved pulled the plug, costing my client a lot of money.
So now the truth comes out... You lost a client so you blame Parallax!·Either you should have used another chip or the task was impossible. Either way, it's your fault, not the propeller chip & Parallax. Back to topic (well it's off topic now anyway)...
Leon said...
Some of us (not many) use other MCUs besides the Propeller.
I believe this statement is quite false, and I am referring to those who post frequently. It is just we do not push other micros down peoples neck. I use others, and so do·quite number that I communicate with off-forum. We are not afraid to use another micro when the task calls for it. We just don't publicise it.
There have been some great points raised here, although most are off-topic (including my own).
I am certain Parallax know the tools and other things are lacking. Chip documentation needs improving. They also need to make it easier for people to find those tools that are available. And they need to better endorse some of the offerings, particularly bst and Catalina (they already endorse ICC) and Viewport. Professionals want to try free tools but if the chip looks reasonable, they will have no problem forking out the $ for professional tools. The "free" tools is a hobbyist mentality, the same as why is the Prop ProtoBoard so expensive. Simple answer is that other companies make them cheap for the design engineers as loss leaders. Some end up in the hands of hobbyists, but believe me that was not the intention of the suppliers. Same thing happens with free sample chips. How many postings have we seen with hobbyists saying you can get this free from xxxx. If I want a chip to checkout I ring my local supplier and he brings·1+ out on his next visit.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ Links to other interesting threads:
I really appreciate and have always enjoyed your contributions to the Parallax forums. So I'm sorry to have to say this, but your petty quarrel with Leon has become more than an unwelcome distraction here and needs to stop. I do not find Leon's posts to be either off-topic or inappropriate to the subject at hand. In fact, a sober look at, and sobering comparison to, what other chip manufacturers are doing is both valuable and enlightening in the context of the thread you have started (but do not own, BTW). So, please, give it a rest. Dissenting and/or divergent opinions should always be welcome here. They are what keep our discussions lively. Being able to accommodate opinions and behaviors one does not agree with is a valuable characteristic that's worth cultivating when it comes to forum participation.
However, if this is just some Aussie/British rivalry that, as an American, I can never hope to understand, please carry on. I shall have to content myself with being entertained by it, I suppose.
You've got to admit, though, that the constant unfavorable criticism of the Prop, and everything surrounding it, gets a little old. Maybe some of that is healthy, but the ceaseless repetition is to what end?
Just my $0.02.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
In regards to the initial post, I would like to give my input:
I don't feel that anyone that already uses the Propeller can answer this thread's question clearly because the question really needs to be asked of someone that is using another microcontroller in products currently in production. Knowing why they made the choices that they made during the design and prototyping stages will provide insight as to what chance the Propeller has in future designs.
I work for a CM and we build quite a bit of product using microcontrollers. The manufacturers we use range from TI, Cypress, Atmel, NXP, Intel, Phillips, and one product with a Microchip. Most I see could easily be done with the propeller.
We have one particular customer that had a change in the position of lead design engineer about a year ago. Funny thing is, all of the new product (last 6 months) we are building for them is being designed with TI micros, yet all of the older products we still build use Atmel. They have years of proven product so why did they change? (hint: it wasn't price or IDE or software tools)....
give up?
.............. The new design engineer likes TI better so he drove the group to change.
To be truthfully honest, that is probably your number one answer: Personal Preference of the Design Engineer.
Being that I interact with product engineers and design engineers almost on a daily basis, I can be open and honest with many. I'll throw some questions out to a few and see what I can get back to be posted here.
Comments
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
I find I can whip up non-trivial new designs far faster on the prop.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
www.mikronauts.com E-mail: mikronauts _at_ gmail _dot_ com
My products: Morpheus / Mem+ / PropCade / FlexMem / VMCOG / Propteus / Proteus / SerPlug
and 6.250MHz Crystals to run Propellers at 100MHz & 5.0" OEM TFT VGA LCD modules
Las - Large model assembler Largos - upcoming nano operating system
It lacked a C compiler, the debugger was non-existent and in their place it had a weird one of kind interpretive language. Basically no HLL support(not that C is really a HLL)
That wasn't a good way to win acceptance in the corporate world.
Bad first impression IMO.
But LMM fixed that in time.
That said, the Prop has to compete with every other 32bit micro out there for corporate attention.
That means you got about 4 comparison points chip wise.
1) Price. In large quantities the Prop is comparable to the PIC32, AVR32, Coldfire and ARM variants. In the 16 bit world the Prop isn't price competitive but it can compensate for this due to its 8 cores to a large extent.
2) Performance. Brute strength wise most of the other 32bitters can beat the Prop cogs no problem. Prop's strength it has 8 cores it can throw at a problem. I think the Prop can really shine on applications where memory requirements are low but need a lot of processing power(PASM).
3) Software support. Currently the Prop has a assembler, Image Craft C and a debugger.
4) Company Support. Excellent.
I chose a microchip product for a project of mine for these reasons -
sufficient IO in one package
256k program memory with 16k ram (a few fonts for an lcd can eat up 16k in a heartbeat)
The compiled assembly approach (C)
Compliant host USB support
So these are probably the main things -
How much chip space would a debugger really take?
Why cannot lmm be made native?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 7/15/2010 9:50:26 PM GMT
It also has some great add-ons from Bob Anderson
Event Driven Logic State Analyzer for ViewPort :
·http://obex.parallax.com/objects/554/
ViewPort add-on to expand 'watch' capabilities
·http://obex.parallax.com/objects/555/
And a new version of ViewPort that ties Catalina and BlackCat together to provide a complete edit-compile-load-debug sequence.
This makes quite a nice suite of tools.
Debbuging tools don't always have to be free. People have been paying $49.00 for the SX-Key for debugging for a long time.
http://www.parallax.com/StoreSearchResults/tabid/768/txtSearch/SX-key/List/0/SortField/4/ProductID/494/Default.aspx
Ray, I hope this is still on topic, I think so. Sorry if it is not.
Jim Post Edited (hover1) : 7/15/2010 11:03:55 PM GMT
I'm a tool man, so the most important thing for me are good tools.
I stumbled on the Propeller 5 years ago when there was just the Propeller "Tool". It provided an editor for yet another new language, a compiler without support for multiple directories, defines, etc.., flaky terminal support via HyperTerminal, and no debugger.
How far we've come since then!
I'm now programming in a single editor that supports C, Spin and Pasm. My projects are split into separate directories with compiler options to support my different hardware setups. I have all sorts of debugging tools- both graphical and breakpoint/step...
Hanno
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Co-author of the official Propeller Guide- available at Amazon
Developer of ViewPort, the premier visual debugger for the Propeller (read the review here, thread here),
12Blocks, the block-based programming environment (thread here)
and PropScope, the multi-function USB oscilloscope/function generator/logic analyzer
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
LMM cannot be made native because the hardware doesn't support it. Please look at Bill Henning's original thread for an explanation of how it works. It's essentially a very fast interpreter that executes native instructions in-line by copying them into the cog's memory one at a time while interpreting some other instructions, particularly those involving flow-of-control (jumps, calls, etc.).
Jim
Post Edited (hover1) : 7/15/2010 11:01:25 PM GMT
NOT all MCU's suport free TOOLS some have cheap BreakBoards BUT very expensive TOOLS/Debugging software. Free Tools only one month and after that only demo that are not usable for advanced programing.
Regards
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Nothing is impossible, there are only different degrees of difficulty.
For every stupid question there is at least one intelligent answer.
Don't guess - ask instead.
If you don't ask you won't know.
If your gonna construct something, make it·as simple as·possible yet as versatile as posible.
Sapieha
Personally, I needed VGA output and precise timing and it was a choice between FPGA and the Prop, and I picked the Prop because it was a lot easier.
BTW: For fun, try googling "Propeller railgun battery"
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
My Prop Apps:· http://www.rayslogic.com/propeller/Programming/Programming.htm
My Prop Info: ·http://www.rayslogic.com/propeller/propeller.htm
My Prop Products:· http://www.rayslogic.com/Propeller/Products/Products.htm
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
But, the Propeller is in a completely different class. It's more comparible to Microchip's 32-bit offerings.
And the thought of trying to do VGA output plus juggle a couple other time critical apps with a PIC is painful...
So, really a FPGA is the only single-chip competetor to the Prop for the kind of apps I'm mostly interested in.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
My Prop Apps:· http://www.rayslogic.com/propeller/Programming/Programming.htm
My Prop Info: ·http://www.rayslogic.com/propeller/propeller.htm
My Prop Products:· http://www.rayslogic.com/Propeller/Products/Products.htm
Amen.· The tools at work were most definitely not free.· In fact they were crazy expensive.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
I agree with Rayman. We use tens of thousands of "Another Microcontroller" per year where I work. We do not use the free toolsets available for that microcontroller. It is great that such free tools are available (as anyone would reasonably expect them to be!) and they are perfectly adequate for encouraging experimentation by hobbyists. They may even facilitate the microcontroller's adoption for commercial purpose (managers love it when their engineers tell them all the tools they will need are available for free!).
But the reality is that these tools are often not adequate for professional use - most companies I know eventaully proceed to buying the tools they need for production use - either from the microcontroller manufacturer, or (more often) from a third party that specializes in such tools.
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 7/16/2010 12:58:16 AM GMT
Yes, of course - hence Catalina!
But of course the tools should really be offered (or at least backed) by Parallax themselves.
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
I gave it a quick try, but became frustrated, and I'll take the blame for not figuring it out. However, It takes an understanding of what you are doing, and setting it up, where a hardware debugger is plug and play with no "cog" requirement.
I don't totally understand lmm, however, my point is that there are times when 496 longs is hardly sufficient. The alternative is lmm, which at this point the only way to use it without contortions is using C. However, you face a quite a performance penalty by doing so. If there were a way to inline assembly within a spin program, it would go a long way towards alleviating the issue.
I paid good money for an icd3, and would be willing to do the same for the propeller.
I like the propeller, I think it is a great product, it is just that for now with the prop1 it can't fit every situation. I suppose in time it will be like the extended basic stamps. This "gentle" pressure different people apply on these topics may eventually bare fruit in some way.
Russ
-Phil
Post Edited (Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)) : 7/16/2010 2:08:59 AM GMT
Dave Hein recently committed work to OBEX that allows using LMM in-line with Spin. Look here.
Cheers,
--Steve
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Pages: Propeller JVM
These aren't selling points because it puts too much burden of responsibility on the community. If Parallax lacks resources, then they should add more. If they can't afford to do so, they need to keep operations at a sustainable level until they can.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller + Picaxe = Romeo & Juliet
Due to the 496 long limit, and the Spin interpreter using it, there is no way other than LMM to in-line assembly in Spin, at least not in the same cog.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
www.mikronauts.com E-mail: mikronauts _at_ gmail _dot_ com
My products: Morpheus / Mem+ / PropCade / FlexMem / VMCOG / Propteus / Proteus / SerPlug
and 6.250MHz Crystals to run Propellers at 100MHz & 5.0" OEM TFT VGA LCD modules
Las - Large model assembler Largos - upcoming nano operating system
Leon: You have successfully hijacked another thread !!!
So if you must. I can make the prop do things your favourite Xmos chip cannot do. I can do things with a prop cheaper than an Intel i5. Is this really relevant? Specifically it is not to THIS thread.
Your comments have not gone unnoticed and they are not appreciated by others too! Please leave the forum.
A lot happened overnight... (My responses are in order of posting)
@potatohead: Your comments about design influences are spot on. Intel won out on it's 8088 (8086 family) for the PC design by IBM over Motorola and it's 68000. Why? Not because it was better. Not because it was cheaper. But because IBM could buy (and did) a slice of Intel and felt more secure they could influence Intel. How about that for facts.
Another fact is that volume of those other chips (PIC) are already well into their life cycle so they will not reduce much in price from here. However, the Prop has significant·potential to lower the price·here if Parallax could get the volume up. You won't necessarily see much on your DIP chip, but this is not the volume for Parallax anyway. I am sure (think it's been said anyway) that the QFP (and QFN??) is subsidising the DIP.
There is a definite bias with design engineers. They always have their favourites, so we need to get the Prop to be a favourite.
Around 1985 I designed our (NetComm in Australia) first PC modem. I had a choice of a MC68705U3S or Z8 (Z8681). I was experienced in both but liked the Motorola better. It was $8 cheaper (BOM & Production cost) although the Z8 micro was actually cheaper than the Motorola micro. I had an argument with my partner that the Motorola did not have enough long term power for the next generation modems which I agreed. However I said that I could do a translator program to convert the motorola code to the Z8 in a few days later·when the need for the more powerful processor arose. We sold over 70,000 before the time came for the Z8. I wrote the converter program and had the code running in under two days. Translation: I was more comfortable with the motorola as I had some modem code already running, and $0.5M profit straight to the bottom line. Did you note the motorola was a more expensive micro! BTW selling price was huge - beginning of the bell curve.
Here is another real life design example. I designed a centronics·interface to an ICL minicomputer (~1981) and sold to ICL. It was a tiny pcb ~2"x3" and used a pair of the newly sampled MC68705P3S at $150 each !!! There were also 2 74xx and 2 transistors and a Coil on the pcb. My pcb plugged inside the printer and it replaced a ginormous pcb which came in it's own box ~24"x18"x6" and cost >$2,000. It used a cheap micro maybe worth ~$30. BTW a centronics printer was worth ~$5,000 or ICL's ~$10,000. Assembly was extremely simple, failures almost non-existent. I was still selling them for the same price 7 years later, even though (hope no ICL'ers reading this) the motorola chips came down to $8 ea. A reverse bell curve because it was a closed market.
Another thing here is that I could have done it much cheaper with a single conventional micro (motorola 6802) with more parts but still fit it into the space allowed. I chose to use two expensive single chip micros (internal 1.7KB eeprom) because I could seperate the code into two simple and distinct threads, one for the printer, one for the ICL. It made coding simpler and quicker time to market.
So, have you realised I liked Motorola/Freescale - until I discovered the Prop that is. And, do you see why I use multiple props?
There are valid points (even cited by Leon) that documentation,·tools, etc are lacking.·We have·said that clearly on other threads·so I am certain Parallax are acutely aware of this. We have seen some indicators they are trying to work on this. So now the truth comes out... You lost a client so you blame Parallax!·Either you should have used another chip or the task was impossible. Either way, it's your fault, not the propeller chip & Parallax. Back to topic (well it's off topic now anyway)...
I believe this statement is quite false, and I am referring to those who post frequently. It is just we do not push other micros down peoples neck. I use others, and so do·quite number that I communicate with off-forum. We are not afraid to use another micro when the task calls for it. We just don't publicise it.
There have been some great points raised here, although most are off-topic (including my own).
I am certain Parallax know the tools and other things are lacking. Chip documentation needs improving. They also need to make it easier for people to find those tools that are available. And they need to better endorse some of the offerings, particularly bst and Catalina (they already endorse ICC) and Viewport. Professionals want to try free tools but if the chip looks reasonable, they will have no problem forking out the $ for professional tools. The "free" tools is a hobbyist mentality, the same as why is the Prop ProtoBoard so expensive. Simple answer is that other companies make them cheap for the design engineers as loss leaders. Some end up in the hands of hobbyists, but believe me that was not the intention of the suppliers. Same thing happens with free sample chips. How many postings have we seen with hobbyists saying you can get this free from xxxx. If I want a chip to checkout I ring my local supplier and he brings·1+ out on his next visit.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
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)·
· Prop OS: SphinxOS·, PropDos , PropCmd··· Search the Propeller forums·(uses advanced Google search)
My cruising website is: ·www.bluemagic.biz·· MultiBlade Props: www.cluso.bluemagic.biz
I really appreciate and have always enjoyed your contributions to the Parallax forums. So I'm sorry to have to say this, but your petty quarrel with Leon has become more than an unwelcome distraction here and needs to stop. I do not find Leon's posts to be either off-topic or inappropriate to the subject at hand. In fact, a sober look at, and sobering comparison to, what other chip manufacturers are doing is both valuable and enlightening in the context of the thread you have started (but do not own, BTW). So, please, give it a rest. Dissenting and/or divergent opinions should always be welcome here. They are what keep our discussions lively. Being able to accommodate opinions and behaviors one does not agree with is a valuable characteristic that's worth cultivating when it comes to forum participation.
However, if this is just some Aussie/British rivalry that, as an American, I can never hope to understand, please carry on. I shall have to content myself with being entertained by it, I suppose.
-Phil
Just my $0.02.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
I don't feel that anyone that already uses the Propeller can answer this thread's question clearly because the question really needs to be asked of someone that is using another microcontroller in products currently in production. Knowing why they made the choices that they made during the design and prototyping stages will provide insight as to what chance the Propeller has in future designs.
I work for a CM and we build quite a bit of product using microcontrollers. The manufacturers we use range from TI, Cypress, Atmel, NXP, Intel, Phillips, and one product with a Microchip. Most I see could easily be done with the propeller.
We have one particular customer that had a change in the position of lead design engineer about a year ago. Funny thing is, all of the new product (last 6 months) we are building for them is being designed with TI micros, yet all of the older products we still build use Atmel. They have years of proven product so why did they change? (hint: it wasn't price or IDE or software tools)....
give up?
.............. The new design engineer likes TI better so he drove the group to change.
To be truthfully honest, that is probably your number one answer: Personal Preference of the Design Engineer.
Being that I interact with product engineers and design engineers almost on a daily basis, I can be open and honest with many. I'll throw some questions out to a few and see what I can get back to be posted here.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Andrew Williams
WBA Consulting
PowerTwig Dual Output Power Supply Module
My Prop projects: Reverse Geo-Cache Box, Custom Metronome, Micro Plunge Logger