No, I don't expect Chip to be making big changes to his design now. In fact I hope all resource are focused on getting the thing done as it is (which I'm sure is the case). I think the Prop II is going to be excellent and as such I want it ASAP:)
Some companies are selling XMOS chips with their own name on them, with code for applications like that in the accompanying flash chip, as if they were high-performance custom silicon. Perhaps Parallax Semiconductor could supply similar unmarked chips for that purpose.
Anyway, I've just received a couple of new Propeller Proto Boards from Spinvent, and I'm off to check that they work.
Coley: Yes I agree, every thread about the prop virtues eventually turns to that other chip. But once the table was done, I thought it should at least reveal the cost. Note the comparison is not equal here, but lets end the debate about the other chip please. This is not relevant to the thread.
Holly: I agree though IIRC Bean? did a PropTerm pcb with a preprogrammed eeprom. I did the same with the RamBlade design. RamBlade II will also come preprogrammed.
How is that other chip not relevant to the question posed by the title of this thread? They are of similar concept, of similar price, perhaps going after similar markets. Off the top of my head I can't think of a more comparable rival.
In your opening post you said "...However, in this age, you only have to look around at other chips to see that..."
I tried to look around and I don't see anything else that even comes close to what these two manufactures doing.
Turns out I appreciate both and wish them both success.
Anyway I think this thread is done. The question is answered. The Prop II is not too little too late. It's holding up very well against a leader in the field. It's going to be very desirable.
Now, back to that PASM coding everyone and not a peep out of you till it's done:)
It depends on the application, something else like a Prop I, PIC or ARM might be much more suitable. Also, who knows what else will be available in a year or so?
It depends on the application, something else like a Prop I, PIC or ARM might be much more suitable. Also, who knows what else will be available in a year or so?
Amen to that! A good engineer looks at all of the available choices and chooses the best part for the job without allowing religious devotion to any one architecture get in the way of the decision making process.
I am even using the Prop as a peripheral device in my main Project (as most already know).
And before coming to the Prop I had looked at others, the prop is the best suited for the job.
My only concern is many will use an ARM, or PowerPC device because it will run Linux or similar, in a device that does not need such an OS, and could be much better accomplished with a different MCU if they would let go of there religious attachment to these high level OSes.
1. I have some questions to be answered by them that will have JTAG.
Cna anyone of You answer me how that instructions can help Propeller II be better?. Look on attached picture -- Only first 2 instructions are Hardware debugging instructions.
And that information are simple to obtain by simple debug program written for that on Propeller. As Propeller are interactive CPU not dummy FPGA/CPLD that can't read its I/O pins without that instructions and send to programmer.
2. It is ever possible to compare Proppeler/Propeller II to other Micro-controllers(that most of them are 8 to16 bit instruction wide) non mention to Power-PC that is NOT any micro-controller CPU?
3. I think many of You don.t read carrefuly what are already written on possibility's. One of that possibility's INCREMENTAL RD/WR -- That give "C" direct more power to build stack's that it need for its functioning. It is much more I can write on that BUT I don't see any need YET as PROPELLER II are still not on sale.
But still - It is Micro-Controller and need be sen as that one TO help us build simpler control systems NOT PC's.
3. I think many of You don.t read carrefuly what are already written on possibility's. One of that possibility's INCREMENTAL RD/WR -- That give "C" direct more power to build stack's that it need for its functioning. It is much more I can write on that BUT I don't see any need YET as PROPELLER II are still not on sale.
Well, you don't start preparing for winter after it starts snowing.
1. I have some questions to be answered by them that will have JTAG.
Cna anyone of You answer me how that instructions can help Propeller II be better?. Look on attached picture -- Only first 2 instructions are Hardware debugging instructions.
Have you ever used JTAG for debugging and programming other devices like ARM chips and FPGAs?
Not all types. BUT most of that info I can have from ViewPort from Propeller to.
I program little in FPGA/CPLD but not use JTAG for debugging.
NOT use ARM at all.
Why should someone have to buy Viewport just to debug their software? Moreover, it wastes a lot of resources, and isn't integrated with the Propeller Tool. I'm not sure if it will debug assembler programs. Similar tools are provided free with by other manufacturers, included with the IDE.
ARM, XMOS, MSP430, ADI DSPs, some AVRs, some PICs, FPGAs, etc. all use JTAG. Doesn't that tell you something?
A lot of professionals will look at the the Propeller, see that there is no debug hardware, and immediately dismiss it. I was intrigued to see that debugging isn't even mentioned on the new Parallax Semiconductor web site. I asked Ken Gracey about the omission, but didn't get a reply.
I do wish Cluso99 would edit the title of this thread. Every time I see it in the list of "What's new?", I cringe.
At least for those of us who've invested our hearts and minds in the Prop I, the Prop II could never be too little, and with Parallax's recent adoption of an automated layout service, it almost certainly won't be too late. Every chip design has to balance the "perfect" against the "possible", and the Prop II is no exception. Nonetheless, when it gets here it will represent a quantum leap in capability for all of us. Everything about it is better than what we've got now, and that's what we need to focus on -- not how it differs from some unattainable ideal.
Meanwhile, there's still too much yet to be explored with the Prop I to be languishing next to the mailbox, paralyzed by our anticipation of an even more magical decoder ring.
Why should someone have to buy Viewport just to debug their software? Moreover, it wastes a lot of resources.
ARM, XMOS, MSP430, some AVRs, some PICs, FPGAs, etc. all use JTAG. Doesn't that tell you something?
A lot of professionals will look at the the Propeller, see that there is no debug hardware, and immediately dismiss it. I was intrigued to see that debugging isn't even mentioned on the new Parallax Semiconductor web site. I asked Ken Gracey about the omission, but didn't get a reply.
It's not difficult or arcane. It's quite simple to implement and very powerful. It can also be used to test and debug multiple devices on the same board, such as a processor and several FPGAs.
As I said, professionals tend to expect it, or some sort of equivalent debug hardware, on the chip these days. Using the Propeller takes me back to the time when the the first thing I did with a new processor chip was to write a simple monitor/debugger program for it, so that I could download my programs to it and debug them via a serial port. I think that was 40 years ago. Viewport is a posh version of those programs I used to write.
There are lots of designs out there for people who want to build their own, or cheap ones available on Ebay. The latter cost about the same as the Prop Plug and work with Xilinx and Altera FPGAs.
It's a bit expensive (they gave me one because they liked one of my ARM designs) but it will emulate lots of different debug interfaces. It could be used to emulate the Prop Plug.
The HW for JTAG is relatively simple. Many engineers complain about it (as I have read on multiple threads), for many different reasons. And when compared to debugging with the code, using ifdef included debug statements with serial, an oscilloscope, and a bit of common since, JTAG is relatively arcane and complicated.
How it can help me - If program that needs for programing --- Will not accept them --- (Real issue -will not say what for CPU/manufacture use that).
BUT I have CPU's PCB's - but theirs JTAG cost to much for me -- Project canceled.
Try shopping around, I'm sure you will find something you can afford, or that you build for yourself. The only awkward one is ADI's for their DSPs. It uses standard JTAG, but is designed for their software, which is very expensive, as is the JTAG I/F.
What boards are those? I can probably suggest cheaper JTAG options if you tell me what you've got.
The HW for JTAG is relatively simple. Many engineers complain about it (as I have read on multiple threads), for many different reasons. And when compared to debugging with the code, using ifdef included debug statements with serial, an oscilloscope, and a bit of common since, JTAG is relatively arcane and complicated.
Sure, engineers complain about JTAG, but they'd complain a lot more if they didn't have it.
I'm not sure what to make of your comment that JTAG is arcane and complicated. To me, it's just there. It is the link from the debugger to the target hardware and I don't even think about it. It's what gives the debugger the ability to single step code, set breakpoints and watchpoints, and do other things that are very difficult with printf statements and oscilloscopes.
Depriving an embedded developer of his JTAG debugging interface is roughly equivalent to telling a hardware engineer he can't use an oscilloscope or logic analyzer to debug his designs.
Sal:
If I wanted to step code set breakpoints and do other poor debugging methods, I would go back to machine language real mode x86 programming. I prefer to program in the present not the early to mid 80s.
Debugging tools are just as necessary for programs written in high-level languages. Why do you think Hanno developed Viewport?
You don't really mean machine code, do you. Debugging assembly language programs is the same process no matter what processor is being used - Propeller or 8080.
I will start here by saying that JTAG is a good interface for programming a device. And if it ends being used for that purpose on a future Prop good.
Single stepping, breakpoints, in short INTERRUPTS are anti Prop, we are always pushing that one of the biggest advantages of the prop is the lack of interrupts, and now you are arguing that we should have breakpoint interrupts, this does not make any since to me.
I will never argue the use usefulness of debugging tools, though why through out everything good about the Prop to get there? We have proven that we can debug our code quite well using the Propellers architecture, so why do you want interrupts.
And it can not be the same debugging a binary using breakpoints (interrupts), and debugging a binary on a processor that does not even support interrupts.
I didn't think that anyone uses machine code any more. Even in the early days of computing, people used to write their programs in assembly language, although they might have had to hand-assemble them on coding sheets. I can remember doing that on my first computer.
Breakpoints might use a software interrupt, but that will be completely transparent to the programmer. The Propeller simply wasn't designed for easy debugging, which is why it isn't mentioned on the new web site.
Comments
Amen to that brother Heater!
Some companies are selling XMOS chips with their own name on them, with code for applications like that in the accompanying flash chip, as if they were high-performance custom silicon. Perhaps Parallax Semiconductor could supply similar unmarked chips for that purpose.
Anyway, I've just received a couple of new Propeller Proto Boards from Spinvent, and I'm off to check that they work.
Holly: I agree though IIRC Bean? did a PropTerm pcb with a preprogrammed eeprom. I did the same with the RamBlade design. RamBlade II will also come preprogrammed.
How is that other chip not relevant to the question posed by the title of this thread? They are of similar concept, of similar price, perhaps going after similar markets. Off the top of my head I can't think of a more comparable rival.
In your opening post you said "...However, in this age, you only have to look around at other chips to see that..."
I tried to look around and I don't see anything else that even comes close to what these two manufactures doing.
Turns out I appreciate both and wish them both success.
Anyway I think this thread is done. The question is answered. The Prop II is not too little too late. It's holding up very well against a leader in the field. It's going to be very desirable.
Now, back to that PASM coding everyone and not a peep out of you till it's done:)
To the best MCU for many tasks, the Propeller II.
It depends on the application, something else like a Prop I, PIC or ARM might be much more suitable. Also, who knows what else will be available in a year or so?
Amen to that! A good engineer looks at all of the available choices and chooses the best part for the job without allowing religious devotion to any one architecture get in the way of the decision making process.
I am even using the Prop as a peripheral device in my main Project (as most already know).
And before coming to the Prop I had looked at others, the prop is the best suited for the job.
My only concern is many will use an ARM, or PowerPC device because it will run Linux or similar, in a device that does not need such an OS, and could be much better accomplished with a different MCU if they would let go of there religious attachment to these high level OSes.
1. I have some questions to be answered by them that will have JTAG.
Cna anyone of You answer me how that instructions can help Propeller II be better?. Look on attached picture -- Only first 2 instructions are Hardware debugging instructions.
And that information are simple to obtain by simple debug program written for that on Propeller. As Propeller are interactive CPU not dummy FPGA/CPLD that can't read its I/O pins without that instructions and send to programmer.
2. It is ever possible to compare Proppeler/Propeller II to other Micro-controllers(that most of them are 8 to16 bit instruction wide) non mention to Power-PC that is NOT any micro-controller CPU?
3. I think many of You don.t read carrefuly what are already written on possibility's. One of that possibility's INCREMENTAL RD/WR -- That give "C" direct more power to build stack's that it need for its functioning. It is much more I can write on that BUT I don't see any need YET as PROPELLER II are still not on sale.
But still - It is Micro-Controller and need be sen as that one TO help us build simpler control systems NOT PC's.
Well, you don't start preparing for winter after it starts snowing.
BUT I know how I need prepare.
On Propeller II. It is still to many things we don't know to have possibility to prepare.
Have you ever used JTAG for debugging and programming other devices like ARM chips and FPGAs?
Not all types. BUT most of that info I can have from ViewPort from Propeller to.
I program little in FPGA/CPLD but not use JTAG for debugging.
NOT use ARM at all.
ARM, XMOS, MSP430, ADI DSPs, some AVRs, some PICs, FPGAs, etc. all use JTAG. Doesn't that tell you something?
A lot of professionals will look at the the Propeller, see that there is no debug hardware, and immediately dismiss it. I was intrigued to see that debugging isn't even mentioned on the new Parallax Semiconductor web site. I asked Ken Gracey about the omission, but didn't get a reply.
At least for those of us who've invested our hearts and minds in the Prop I, the Prop II could never be too little, and with Parallax's recent adoption of an automated layout service, it almost certainly won't be too late. Every chip design has to balance the "perfect" against the "possible", and the Prop II is no exception. Nonetheless, when it gets here it will represent a quantum leap in capability for all of us. Everything about it is better than what we've got now, and that's what we need to focus on -- not how it differs from some unattainable ideal.
Meanwhile, there's still too much yet to be explored with the Prop I to be languishing next to the mailbox, paralyzed by our anticipation of an even more magical decoder ring.
-Phil
As I said, professionals tend to expect it, or some sort of equivalent debug hardware, on the chip these days. Using the Propeller takes me back to the time when the the first thing I did with a new processor chip was to write a simple monitor/debugger program for it, so that I could download my programs to it and debug them via a serial port. I think that was 40 years ago. Viewport is a posh version of those programs I used to write.
JTAG interfaces - most of them are bundle to programing software.
Then there is the Amontec Chameleon:
http://www.amontec.com/chameleon.shtml
It's a bit expensive (they gave me one because they liked one of my ARM designs) but it will emulate lots of different debug interfaces. It could be used to emulate the Prop Plug.
The HW for JTAG is relatively simple. Many engineers complain about it (as I have read on multiple threads), for many different reasons. And when compared to debugging with the code, using ifdef included debug statements with serial, an oscilloscope, and a bit of common since, JTAG is relatively arcane and complicated.
BUT I have CPU's PCB's - but theirs JTAG cost to much for me -- Project canceled.
What boards are those? I can probably suggest cheaper JTAG options if you tell me what you've got.
Sure, engineers complain about JTAG, but they'd complain a lot more if they didn't have it.
I'm not sure what to make of your comment that JTAG is arcane and complicated. To me, it's just there. It is the link from the debugger to the target hardware and I don't even think about it. It's what gives the debugger the ability to single step code, set breakpoints and watchpoints, and do other things that are very difficult with printf statements and oscilloscopes.
Depriving an embedded developer of his JTAG debugging interface is roughly equivalent to telling a hardware engineer he can't use an oscilloscope or logic analyzer to debug his designs.
If I wanted to step code set breakpoints and do other poor debugging methods, I would go back to machine language real mode x86 programming. I prefer to program in the present not the early to mid 80s.
You don't really mean machine code, do you. Debugging assembly language programs is the same process no matter what processor is being used - Propeller or 8080.
Single stepping, breakpoints, in short INTERRUPTS are anti Prop, we are always pushing that one of the biggest advantages of the prop is the lack of interrupts, and now you are arguing that we should have breakpoint interrupts, this does not make any since to me.
I will never argue the use usefulness of debugging tools, though why through out everything good about the Prop to get there? We have proven that we can debug our code quite well using the Propellers architecture, so why do you want interrupts.
Yes I mean machine code.
And it can not be the same debugging a binary using breakpoints (interrupts), and debugging a binary on a processor that does not even support interrupts.
Breakpoints might use a software interrupt, but that will be completely transparent to the programmer. The Propeller simply wasn't designed for easy debugging, which is why it isn't mentioned on the new web site.