I got into microcontrollers about four years (wait let be check my profile), no that was three and a half years ago. I was clueless about what microcontroller to get. I purchased both Basic Stamps and the Propeller. I started with the Stamp. I even purchased the "Stamp Collection". Once I started learning to use the Propeller, I didn't see any reason to go back to the Stamps. They're more expensive and can do a lot, lot, lot less.
I subscribe to several robot and electronics magazines. I frequently see articles were the author wanted to add some feature to his robot but it made the servo start to jitter (or some other problem) because it messed up the timing in the main loop. It get exasperated seeing people torture themselves with a single core controller.
I agree completely with erco's cry "You Really Should Upgrade to the Prop".
(As long as there are hornets flying around anyway.)
Somewhere... in the morass of old manuals, shelves with ancient computers, prehistoric games(on 3.5" diskettes), probably close to where my OS/2 computer stands, I have a box containing a BS2p, an LCD, and a whole slew of DalSemi 1-wire buttons. All in all a nearly complete central locking system for my car. It can read the 1-Wire buttons, open and lock doors, check door-sensors, and I think I was well into implementing an ice-warning system. I had plans to add 'auto adjusted' mirrors based on whose 1-Wire button was used to unlock, too.
(It got shelved when my old car was crushed by a 6WD dump-truck)
Not once did I run into a memory problem...
I guess I could rebuild it with a Prop, for my current car, but the only thing it would allow me to do differently would be to use an LCD monitor and prettyer menus. And that can be done by external accessories for the BS2, too.
(And besides, I already have the text-based LCD... )
I agree completely with erco's cry "You Really Should Upgrade to the Prop".
Duane
TTYTT, I was making just the opposite point. I'm snug & warm inside my little BS2 straightjacket, thank you very much! There's a yawning chasm of knowledge between a Stamp & Prop. Not everyone will cross the divide, whether ability or desire. I'm still a fan of the Stamp's simplicity and huge following. Sure it's got its limitations, but in many cases, education, clever workarounds or managed expectations can result in a workable Stamp solution. Whether by public demand or Ken's back inventory, I doubt if the Stamp will be "quietly retired" anytime soon and I think that's great. That said, the Prop is truly great and certainly cheaper & better for most apps, it's just not the user-friendly beginner chip that the Stamp is.
Sure it's got its limitations, but in many cases, education, clever workarounds or managed expectations can result in a workable Stamp solution.
Exactly, my friend.
Case in point - my "flagship product" requires the handling of close to 144 analog switches. Either product, Stamp or Propeller, would require a bit of out-board logic expansion. I chose the Stamp because it would be "easier to make it work". When manufacturing becomes real, I'll dump the BS2 and go to an imbedded Stamp interpreter chip on the main PCB.
When I get to products that require A/D-D/A, I will probably move over to the Propeller for the horsepower to drive the math functions. But who knows...maybe there are "clever workarounds" for that with the Stamp.
Having worked extensively with both the BASIC Stamp and the Propeller, I can say with certainty that it's the "clever workarounds" often required for the Stamp that can make it less friendly for beginning users than the Propeller. However, I will admit that Spin, in it's present form, may not be the best beginner language. But let's face it, PBASIC stripped of its special operators like FREQOUT and RCTIME is even less so. Perhaps what's needed, in addition to a new mountain of curricular materials, is a beginner's version of Spin that includes built-in methods equivalent to PBASIC's special operators without having to reference external objects. I know this is a lot to ask for, and it can't happen overnight -- or even within a few years. But I guess the point of my original post on the subject is that it's time to start thinking about this now, lest Parallax's BASIC Stamp cash cows become mere sacred cows with a wealth of support but a dwindling user base.
In hindsight, I realize this is slightly OT from the original poster's point or whether current BASIC Stamp users be shunted toward the Propeller when they hit a snag.
...but I would posit that beginning users wouldn't yet be at the level of requiring "clever workarounds", and in that, maintain the friendliness of the Stamp.
First let me say that I have both the Prop and the Stamp.
Then, if I have a question about the Stamp, the S-T-A-M-P, I would not appreciate being told to use the Prop. Suggest it? OK. But how is telling me I should use the Prop any different than Leon's "evangelism" for other chips?
The way I might see it is that I'm being told to use the Prop. That implies the Stamp can NOT do what I want. Before I switch to the Prop (I don't NEED 8 micros to do what I want!), maybe I should take a look at other boards. Hmmm, the Arduino seems to be popular, and they have a board for $25! Not to mention more I/O pins. Hasta la vista, babies!
Just my two (s)cents,
--Rich
P.S., I have a number of kits/systems/whatsits. I've realized what I like is an automatic loading system. Pop in the CD, run Startup, and go. I do not appreciate digging through reams of docs to find out how to make my Blink_LED code to compile, let alone run. (Yeah, uChip, I'm looking at YOU!) (No, Parallax, you are OK with the Prop's manual, and the N+V articles.)
I have an Ardunio (Mega2560), and frankly, seeing the 'Alpha' designation of the IDE doesn't impress me. Neither does the bugs that appears when you have a lot of files open.(You need a lot of files whn compiling firmware to a Prusa Mendel 3D printer... ) Not being able to SEE all the files at once is rather annoying. (Not that I need to edit more than a few of the. It's the principle)
While I love Open Source, the software for the Ardunio really isn't ready for end-users, yet.
A 5pack of Protoboards cost $99, or just under $20 for each.
(you can get a 4pack of the USB version for the same price)
I guess the Ardunio doesn't really beat the Propeller on price.
Most times it's possible to do what you want with the microcontroller you've picked. sometimes it takes a few extra bits in the circuit, and sometimes it really isn't possible.
And when it's not possible, we basically have two options.
Try to help the user to find a different way of doing what is needed, or help him find another controller that can do what he wants.
I guess we could try a little harder to find a workaround, sometimes.
I hesitate to feed this thread again myself, but I did want to say that limitations of the BASIC Stamp are highly subjective. Just before I started working at Parallax I helped a company realize a project that their team of highly paid (make more than I do) engineers said could not be done on the BASIC Stamp due to limited variables, programming space, etc. I made it work just fine. The code was very inefficient by old-school standards. Just because one person (or several) don't think something can be accomplished with a given controller, doesn't make it so. It just means they cannot do it themselves. There may still be someone who could do it.
Very well said, Chris! A place for every uC, and every uC in its place. As Mike Green said previously, even a BS1 is a useful controller when it fills the bill.
There are certainly good and bad programmers out there which affect the success or failure of any given project. More importantly, many software guys are not hardware guys & vice versa. When you only have half of the knowledge required, little problems become big ones.
For the most part Spin is a fairly easy for a PBasic programmer to use, but there are a few gotchas. The commonly used >= and <= do not mean what you expect. They are test and assignment operators and you use =< and => instead. It also uses Pascal's := assignment operator and C's == equality operator. I can adjust and function fine, but they're a bit like the black ottoman in my living room at night.
Tracy, you're right -- post deleted. Despite the true innocence of my initial misinterpretation -- and I have no idea what made my mind go in that direction -- calling attention to it was out-of-bounds. My apologies for any offense I may have caused to anyone who might have read it.
The Spin BS2 functions are pretty handy when porting PBasic to the Propeller. I used them just recently and it made it fairly easy.
Hmm, I missed Phil's juicy post too. Looking up thread most of the recent posts are pretty innocuous, so it's hard to connect the dots too. Although I did complain about the deadly stealth of the >= operator.
Phil, no offense taken here, and as a moderator I am no Browser (who must have been asleep on his hassock). Language and sharp wit are a wonderful thing, and I'm a bit sorry you deleted the post. I guess it remains a tease for twisted minds, aPropOS of nothing!
For the most part Spin is a fairly easy for a PBasic programmer to use, but there are a few gotchas. The commonly used >= and <= do not mean what you expect. They are test and assignment operators and you use =< and => instead. It also uses Pascal's := assignment operator and C's == equality operator. I can adjust and function fine, but they're a bit like the black ottoman in my living room at night.
I really wish my wife never got that ottoman.
A black ottoman is no less evil than a coffee table with a clear glass top! I have the scars on my shins to prove it. :-|
A black ottoman is no less evil than a coffee table with a clear glass top! I have the scars on my shins to prove it. :-|
An invisible coffee table does sound pretty dangerous, but coffee tables tend to stay put. This ottoman seems to wander around of its own volition, so it's exact location is never know. It also seems governed by an uncertainty principle inversely proportional to illumination too.
If we put your invisible coffee table in a room with the black ottoman, we just might create the ultimate death trap. It would be completely unsafe to navigate day or night!
I'll bump up this thread with a simple question. The propeller indeed looks good, but why not make it's syntax more BASIC language styled?
Parallax could always ask someone to port PBASIC to Propeller so that anyone could use the BasicStamp Tools and PBASIC programs without any distractions. Why is this is not done? Needing to use SPIN equivalents is not the same!
IMHO PBASIC is the main reason Parallax still exists to this day. Maybe it's time for a "New Coke" marketing twist.
Parallax could always ask someone to port PBASIC to Propeller so that anyone could use the BasicStamp Tools and PBASIC programs without any distractions.
If this could be done it would be awesome. Give it the ability to run a different PBASIC program in each cog with some shared variables and this could be very... well never mind, it might mean the end of the Basic Stamps.
If this could be done it would be awesome. Give it the ability to run a different PBASIC program in each cog with some shared variables and this could be very... well never mind, it might mean the end of the Basic Stamps.
THAT's a hoot. Make an "adapter" board to transform a Prop into a Stamp and call it a day!
I agree. It's not always necessary to upgrade to a prop. Take for example, the SEED. When one BS1 needed a bit more memory and power, the project used ten. Also, the BASIC Stamp can help develop apps and algorithms for the Propeller. I built this AM Algorithm Machine to do just that.
Parallax could always ask someone to port PBASIC to Propeller so that anyone could use the BasicStamp Tools and PBASIC programs without any distractions. Why is this is not done? Needing to use SPIN equivalents is not the same!
IMHO PBASIC is the main reason Parallax still exists to this day. Maybe it's time for a "New Coke" marketing twist.
I agree !
In fact Iam a nut but I would love a 2 cog 12 Pin Mini prop or a 1 cog 8 pin . ,most of what I do needs SO FEW PINS .
I have a very hard time as a builder wedging a huge chip on a board and use meh 4 wires . the BS1 was ideal ! .
I have had to resort to a PicAxe 8 pin for those uber small jobs , Eg I needed a GPS to PWM converter so that a data logger can read a 0-5V value as 0-50 MPH ..... most data loggers are not Ser In sadly ....
I am not a chip exper but I have a feeling a normal 8 cog die can be used on a small chip and just the 1st set of pins would come out ... 12 Pin sounds great ! 2 OSC 2 Power and 8 for I/Os meh 14 and add the lines for the EEPROM
You don't even need a real prop. Using a few stamps, a Fake Prop is possible.
"This fun project emulates simple exampling parallel functions of a Propeller chip by connecting together a cluster of Basic Stamp processors. Each Stamp represents one Cog, has its own operating program and communicates through a common BUS using PBASIC programming language. Output is to a built-in green screen LCD monitor. Unlike the real Prop, the Fake Prop can be rewired in between its Cogs."
Comments
I got into microcontrollers about four years (wait let be check my profile), no that was three and a half years ago. I was clueless about what microcontroller to get. I purchased both Basic Stamps and the Propeller. I started with the Stamp. I even purchased the "Stamp Collection". Once I started learning to use the Propeller, I didn't see any reason to go back to the Stamps. They're more expensive and can do a lot, lot, lot less.
I subscribe to several robot and electronics magazines. I frequently see articles were the author wanted to add some feature to his robot but it made the servo start to jitter (or some other problem) because it messed up the timing in the main loop. It get exasperated seeing people torture themselves with a single core controller.
I agree completely with erco's cry "You Really Should Upgrade to the Prop".
(As long as there are hornets flying around anyway.)
Duane
(It got shelved when my old car was crushed by a 6WD dump-truck)
Not once did I run into a memory problem...
I guess I could rebuild it with a Prop, for my current car, but the only thing it would allow me to do differently would be to use an LCD monitor and prettyer menus. And that can be done by external accessories for the BS2, too.
(And besides, I already have the text-based LCD... )
TTYTT, I was making just the opposite point. I'm snug & warm inside my little BS2 straightjacket, thank you very much! There's a yawning chasm of knowledge between a Stamp & Prop. Not everyone will cross the divide, whether ability or desire. I'm still a fan of the Stamp's simplicity and huge following. Sure it's got its limitations, but in many cases, education, clever workarounds or managed expectations can result in a workable Stamp solution. Whether by public demand or Ken's back inventory, I doubt if the Stamp will be "quietly retired" anytime soon and I think that's great. That said, the Prop is truly great and certainly cheaper & better for most apps, it's just not the user-friendly beginner chip that the Stamp is.
Exactly, my friend.
Case in point - my "flagship product" requires the handling of close to 144 analog switches. Either product, Stamp or Propeller, would require a bit of out-board logic expansion. I chose the Stamp because it would be "easier to make it work". When manufacturing becomes real, I'll dump the BS2 and go to an imbedded Stamp interpreter chip on the main PCB.
When I get to products that require A/D-D/A, I will probably move over to the Propeller for the horsepower to drive the math functions. But who knows...maybe there are "clever workarounds" for that with the Stamp.
In hindsight, I realize this is slightly OT from the original poster's point or whether current BASIC Stamp users be shunted toward the Propeller when they hit a snag.
-Phil
Then, if I have a question about the Stamp, the S-T-A-M-P, I would not appreciate being told to use the Prop. Suggest it? OK. But how is telling me I should use the Prop any different than Leon's "evangelism" for other chips?
The way I might see it is that I'm being told to use the Prop. That implies the Stamp can NOT do what I want. Before I switch to the Prop (I don't NEED 8 micros to do what I want!), maybe I should take a look at other boards. Hmmm, the Arduino seems to be popular, and they have a board for $25! Not to mention more I/O pins. Hasta la vista, babies!
Just my two (s)cents,
--Rich
P.S., I have a number of kits/systems/whatsits. I've realized what I like is an automatic loading system. Pop in the CD, run Startup, and go. I do not appreciate digging through reams of docs to find out how to make my Blink_LED code to compile, let alone run. (Yeah, uChip, I'm looking at YOU!) (No, Parallax, you are OK with the Prop's manual, and the N+V articles.)
While I love Open Source, the software for the Ardunio really isn't ready for end-users, yet.
A 5pack of Protoboards cost $99, or just under $20 for each.
(you can get a 4pack of the USB version for the same price)
I guess the Ardunio doesn't really beat the Propeller on price.
Most times it's possible to do what you want with the microcontroller you've picked. sometimes it takes a few extra bits in the circuit, and sometimes it really isn't possible.
And when it's not possible, we basically have two options.
Try to help the user to find a different way of doing what is needed, or help him find another controller that can do what he wants.
I guess we could try a little harder to find a workaround, sometimes.
There are certainly good and bad programmers out there which affect the success or failure of any given project. More importantly, many software guys are not hardware guys & vice versa. When you only have half of the knowledge required, little problems become big ones.
More seriously, the Spin syntax was probably designed to be more structured than Basic syntax to force better habits on programmers.
I really wish my wife never got that ottoman.
-Phil
Like BS2 Functions in the OBEX?
Hmm, I missed Phil's juicy post too. Looking up thread most of the recent posts are pretty innocuous, so it's hard to connect the dots too. Although I did complain about the deadly stealth of the >= operator.
http://news.yahoo.com/spacex-rocket-glitch-puts-satellite-wrong-orbit-213039503--sector.html
A black ottoman is no less evil than a coffee table with a clear glass top! I have the scars on my shins to prove it. :-|
@
An invisible coffee table does sound pretty dangerous, but coffee tables tend to stay put. This ottoman seems to wander around of its own volition, so it's exact location is never know. It also seems governed by an uncertainty principle inversely proportional to illumination too.
If we put your invisible coffee table in a room with the black ottoman, we just might create the ultimate death trap. It would be completely unsafe to navigate day or night!
IMHO PBASIC is the main reason Parallax still exists to this day. Maybe it's time for a "New Coke" marketing twist.
If this could be done it would be awesome. Give it the ability to run a different PBASIC program in each cog with some shared variables and this could be very... well never mind, it might mean the end of the Basic Stamps.
THAT's a hoot. Make an "adapter" board to transform a Prop into a Stamp and call it a day!
I agree !
In fact Iam a nut but I would love a 2 cog 12 Pin Mini prop or a 1 cog 8 pin . ,most of what I do needs SO FEW PINS .
I have a very hard time as a builder wedging a huge chip on a board and use meh 4 wires . the BS1 was ideal ! .
I have had to resort to a PicAxe 8 pin for those uber small jobs , Eg I needed a GPS to PWM converter so that a data logger can read a 0-5V value as 0-50 MPH ..... most data loggers are not Ser In sadly ....
I am not a chip exper but I have a feeling a normal 8 cog die can be used on a small chip and just the 1st set of pins would come out ... 12 Pin sounds great ! 2 OSC 2 Power and 8 for I/Os meh 14 and add the lines for the EEPROM
"This fun project emulates simple exampling parallel functions of a Propeller chip by connecting together a cluster of Basic Stamp processors. Each Stamp represents one Cog, has its own operating program and communicates through a common BUS using PBASIC programming language. Output is to a built-in green screen LCD monitor. Unlike the real Prop, the Fake Prop can be rewired in between its Cogs."