Download latest version of PropBasic for Viewport here...

BeanBean Posts: 8,099
edited 2013-04-22 - 08:19:08 in Propeller 1
I have started a new thread to keep the latest version of PropBasic for viewport.

Nov 7, 2011 Version 1.26
Fixed: WDATA and LDATA not generating any values in spin file.

Nov 17, 2011 Version 1.27
Support for ViewPort Terminal (need viewport 4.6.7 or later) using "VPterminal_lib.pbas"

Bean
«13

Comments

  • Jim FouchJim Fouch Posts: 395
    edited 2011-11-07 - 13:20:10
    Bean,

    Do you have any documentation on how to interface PropBasic with ViewPort. I have ViewPort, but have never used it with PropBasic and have no idea how to integrate the two.
  • SapiehaSapieha Posts: 2,964
    edited 2011-11-07 - 13:30:36
    First of all You need update ViewPort to latest version.
    Next -- Simply copy PropBasic in ViewPort Installation directory.

    Jim Fouch wrote: »
    Bean,

    Do you have any documentation on how to interface PropBasic with ViewPort. I have ViewPort, but have never used it with PropBasic and have no idea how to integrate the two.
  • HannoHanno Posts: 1,130
    edited 2011-11-07 - 14:22:09
    Hi Jim,
    I've pm'ed you the latest beta of ViewPort which includes Propeller Tool style background coloring for sections of PropBasic code as well as the handy indentation guide. You need to:
    - install ViewPort and PropBasic
    - file/open a "PropBasic" file- they end with the ".pbas" extension. You could start with tutorial "29_PropBasic.pbas" from ViewPort's tutorials.
    - you can also start a new document with file/new and then select ".pbas".
    - you can start with any "pbas" file and then start adding the viewport specific keywords
    Hanno
  • Jim FouchJim Fouch Posts: 395
    edited 2011-11-07 - 14:44:06
    Thanks Hanno & Sapieha, I'll take a look tonight.

    I haven't used PropBasic in a few months and will love to reacquainted with it.
  • simonlsimonl Posts: 866
    edited 2011-11-09 - 08:50:52
    Any chance I could get my hands on a copy of ViewPort with PropBASIC integration too? I'm just building my first wheeled robot and will be using PropBASIC.

    Oh; and I'm good at breaking things - I'm often used as a beta tester at work!
  • photomankcphotomankc Posts: 929
    edited 2011-11-09 - 09:38:18
    Ditto. I'm working on a robot design myself and Viewport is going to a part of my life again and I plan to start using PropBasic to get some basic ASM code for stuff I'd rather not code from scratch.
  • HannoHanno Posts: 1,130
    edited 2011-11-09 - 19:11:02
    The latest ViewPort "Beta" is here:
    http://hannoware.com/viewport/beta.php
    Hanno
  • photomankcphotomankc Posts: 929
    edited 2011-11-09 - 21:08:05
    Thanks I'll get that downloaded.
  • BeanBean Posts: 8,099
    edited 2011-11-10 - 05:13:32
    I recommend using PropBasic with Viewport as the IDE.
    Reason is that with BST when I make a modification to the compiler, I need to send the source files to BradC and HE has to integrate it into BST.
    He has been hard to reach lately, so no updates for quite awhile.

    With Viewport, I can just post the new PropBasic.exe and updates should be quickly provided.

    Bean
  • RsadeikaRsadeika Posts: 3,441
    edited 2011-11-10 - 05:37:36
    So, will Hanno provide a freebie Viewport so we can use PropBasic?

    Ray
  • BeanBean Posts: 8,099
    edited 2011-11-10 - 05:41:46
    Rsadeika wrote: »
    So, will Hanno provide a freebie Viewport so we can use PropBasic?

    Ray

    Ray,
    I have already brought up the subject with Hanno. He will have to make a business decision about that. But I sure hope he does.
    Even if it is a striped-down version. It will be a way to get more people using Viewport and hopefully upgrading it to a paid version.

    Bean
  • RsadeikaRsadeika Posts: 3,441
    edited 2011-11-10 - 05:46:53
    That is what I was thinking, a stripped down version, to run PropBasic; he could also add some teaser stuff, so people would consider a paid version.

    Ray
  • HannoHanno Posts: 1,130
    edited 2011-11-10 - 12:04:14
    There's currently a $29 version that gives you basic ViewPort support. There's also a 30 day free trial.

    It looks like some people really want a free version so I'll work on a striped down release that edits code, compiles C(catalina and gcc) spin and propbasic and loads binaries to the prop. It will be a separate installer, available on Win, OSX and Linux with an "ad" for the full ViewPort at closing- similar to what I currently do with EZLog:http://hannoware.com/ezlog/

    Would be nice if Parallax supported this publicly...
    Hanno
  • simonlsimonl Posts: 866
    edited 2011-11-12 - 12:54:08
    Not sure it's fair to ask Hanno to put in all his effort and expect a free version - why not offer a low cost editor only; say $10?

    I'm now going to download the latest beta, test it with PropBASIC, then expect to purchase @ $29 anyway. Might even upgrade to one of the higher versions if I make enough use of it.
  • FriedVFriedV Posts: 77
    edited 2011-11-12 - 14:14:16
    If you need an editor only, you can use for example editplus3. The IDE can be implemeted via user tools,
    using the homespun compiler & PropBasic.
    I think this should be possible with several available editors, i.e. codeblocks, pspad etc.
    Cheers, Friedrich
  • simonlsimonl Posts: 866
    edited 2011-11-12 - 15:29:43
    FriedV wrote: »
    If you need an editor only, you can use for example editplus3. The IDE can be implemeted via user tools,
    using the homespun compiler & PropBasic.
    I think this should be possible with several available editors, i.e. codeblocks, pspad etc.
    Cheers, Friedrich
    I guess that's my point; I started with PropBASIC using Notepad++. I moved to BST when that supported PropBASIC, but now it seems sensible to use ViewPort - especially if it means we get quicker access to new PropBASIC versions :) I guess Hanno could offer a version that only has (say) the LSA. For me, I'm happy to pay $29 - great value, considering all Hanno's hard work.

    @Hanno: Agreed - Parallax would do well do publicly support ViewPort, it adds so much to the Propeller toolkit.
  • SandfireSandfire Posts: 32
    edited 2011-11-12 - 15:32:40
    simonl wrote: »
    Not sure it's fair to ask Hanno to put in all his effort and expect a free version - why not offer a low cost editor only; say $10?

    I'm now going to download the latest beta, test it with PropBASIC, then expect to purchase @ $29 anyway. Might even upgrade to one of the higher versions if I make enough use of it.

    Yes, I totally agree. Besides, $29 *is* free and as Hanno says, there is a 30 day free trial as well. I'd rather see Hanno continue to spend his time and experience making new features for people who actually pay for and respect his time and experience.

    Just like a Lawyer, Hanno's time and experience is his stock in trade.

    People *always* want things for free, but I think it would just waste more of Hanno's time supporting something that people are too cheap to pay for.

    There is only one Hanno and we should treat his time with respect.

    The same goes for Bean. I wish he could somehow get compensated for all the work he has put into PropBasic.

    Anyway, that is just my opinion. I hope nobody was offended.
  • jonesjones Posts: 281
    edited 2011-11-12 - 22:23:20
    I'm not sure if this is the thread for bug reports but for whatever it's worth, the issue I posted about on the other thread with XTAL1 vs XINPUT is still happening, except using ViewPort it interferes with communication between ViewPort and the Prop.

    On this board I'm using a 40 MHz VCXO module instead of a 5 MHz crystal, and if I use

    DEVICE P8X32A, XINPUT
    FREQ 40_000_000

    ViewPort can't communicate with the Prop after loading the code.

    DEVICE P8X32A, XTAL1
    FREQ 40_000_000

    does work OK, however and ViewPort works fine. For whatever reason it appears _clkmode isn't getting set correctly for XINPUT modes. No big deal with a simple workaround, but maybe it could be looked at when it's convenient. The VCXO drives Xi and with Xo open it's safe to use XTAL1, right?

    Edit: disregard.

    With a different board using a 4.096 MHz VCXO, I changed propbasic.pbas example to include

    DEVICE P8X32A, XINPUT, PLL16X
    FREQ 4_096_000

    and it worked correctly, allowing ViewPort to communicate. Not sure what the issues are with the other hardware (parallax pro devevopment board) since the code loaded and ran OK but ViewPort had issues, but this hand-wired board is working so my assumptions were bogus. Sorry. This is an improvement over BST, where even Kuroneko agreed the XINPUT|PLL16X wasn't being handled correctly. Crawling back under my rock now.
  • bsnutbsnut Posts: 520
    edited 2011-11-12 - 23:51:23
    Placing bug reports in this thread is whole idea of this thread, which to talk about Prop Basic and have Bean give us his answers.

    Now on the matter of Hanno making Viewport free in a strip down version available for free. I think Hanno could make a version of Viewport that supports Prop Basic only for free and if you want a version that supports other things you could buy the upgrade. Which I wouldn't mind seeing done.

    As the other posters mention Bean and Hanno put alot of hard work into the software and we should thank them for this work.
  • HannoHanno Posts: 1,130
    edited 2011-11-13 - 12:06:32
    Thanks for the support everyone! I'm very touched. I think the best way I can support people like Ross (Catalina) and Bean is to release a free editor/compiler/loader. As other languages become popular I can add those as well.
    I'm hoping that enough people will support my work by upgrading and paying for the debugging/graphing/etc features of ViewPort. I've been able to convert quite a few Arduino/PICAXE users by showing them the combination of ViewPort and the Propeller.
    Hanno
  • BeanBean Posts: 8,099
    edited 2011-11-15 - 07:39:20
    I am working on supporting the terminal in viewport. It's going good and I should have a library of support routines soon.

    PropBasic is designed to create really fast code, but you give up a alot.

    In the future I would like to re-design PropBasic to...
    Generate ONLY LMM code (slower I know, but code will be larger than the current version of PropBasic)
    Full expression evaluation
    String support
    Automatic use of subroutines for commands that generate a lot of code (SEROUT for example).
    Floating point support

    Programs written in the next generation of PropBasic will run much slower, but the language will be much closer to generic BASIC. And they should still be much faster than spin (5x or so ???).

    Bean
  • PublisonPublison Posts: 11,687
    edited 2011-11-15 - 08:27:17
    bsnut wrote: »

    As the other posters mention Bean and Hanno put alot of hard work into the software and we should thank them for this work.

    Yes, thank you Bean, (hope your feeling better), and Hanno!

    @Bean
    Late congrats on 7000+ posts!

    @Hanno
    Late congrats on 1000+ post!

    Jim
  • FriedVFriedV Posts: 77
    edited 2011-11-15 - 09:34:57
    Thanks Bean & Hanno for all your work!
    I don't know if it is a good thing to support LMM code only, I would really like to be able to write code
    for a single cog running on its own, as fast as it will go. If I could only use a subset of the whole language,
    so be it. It is better I think than to write this sort of code in assembly.
    Just my 2c Friedrich
  • Jim FouchJim Fouch Posts: 395
    edited 2011-11-15 - 09:38:43
    I also think having the ability to write the fastest code to run in a single COG has alot of value.
  • BeanBean Posts: 8,099
    edited 2011-11-15 - 10:35:16
    You will be able to use inline LMM assembly and it will support native assembly as a TASK that runs in it's own cog. But that TASK will have to be all PASM.

    I'm afraid it will be a nightmare to support two different compilers. And really confusing for the users.

    Bean
  • SapiehaSapieha Posts: 2,964
    edited 2011-11-15 - 11:21:42
    Hi Bean.

    Two compilers NO! - But two modes in same Compiler preferred!

    Bean wrote: »
    You will be able to use inline LMM assembly and it will support native assembly as a TASK that runs in it's own cog. But that TASK will have to be all PASM.

    I'm afraid it will be a nightmare to support two different compilers. And really confusing for the users.

    Bean
  • HannoHanno Posts: 1,130
    edited 2011-11-15 - 11:26:52
    Hi Bean,
    I love the idea of easily writing a single task in inline lmm. 5x faster than spin isn't too shabby either. It's difficult to compromise on decisions like these but I think you're making the right one. The nice thing about lmm is that it'll be much easier to support full featured debugging (breakpoints, stepping) at full speed. Just like BlackCat for Catalina. Thanks for working on terminal support :)
    Hanno
  • jonesjones Posts: 281
    edited 2011-11-15 - 14:01:47
    The specific reason I chose PropBasic was to be able to write full-speed cog code in some high-level language. What I'm working on involves video, and none of the existing Spin objects appeared to meet my needs. I looked at the video code written in assembler, and frankly didn't have much success figuring it out (I'm a tinkerer, not an engineer). What sold me was Bean's TV.lib. Not only did that code help me understand how to use the video hardware, but I was able to convert it to provide simple OSD capability with very little trouble which wouldn't have happened with assembler. I know that's nothing earth-shaking for most of you, but when I compared the fairly simple changes required to what it would take for me to get over the hump with assembler, it was an easy decision. The stripped-down nature of PropBasic hasn't been a hindrance to me and to be able to choose LMM or pack everything into a cog seems the ideal compromise.

    It's up to Bean what PropBasic becomes, it's his excellent work and his call, but if he does change I'll be hoping to hang onto the last version of the existing model. Incidentally, I'm not trying to transition from Stamps, although I did use a couple of BS1s in projects some years ago. For the last ten years or so I've used PICs and C. For me, this isn't a Basic vs Spin vs C question. It's anything high-level vs assembler yet still be able to get all the speed the hardware can provide.

    -Bob
  • Christof Eb.Christof Eb. Posts: 371
    edited 2011-11-16 - 12:47:40
    Hi Bean,
    - PANIC - I totally agree with Bob.
    The possibility to write really fast and compact cog code is one of PropBasics biggest strengths! Please keep that alive!
    All of the three major projects, where I use PropBasic have used this specific strength: Soundprocessor, CNC- Controller, Mandelbrot-Project.
    The soundprocessor would not work at all with LMM code.
    CNC-Controller and Mandelbrot would be no fun at all.
    It is great, that you can write hardware drivers in PropBasic instead of PASM! And I have learned a lot how to code PASM. I think, it is very attractive, to have a fast simpler language, which produces compact code. (At this moment I am not yet convinced, that GCC will be usable at all because of code size.)
    It is great, that there is PropBasic which gives you all of the power of the Prop.

    I know, I have asked to support float directly, but this prize would be too high!
    - Christof
Sign In or Register to comment.