I was referring to an application that was going into production. No one in their right mind would use a 44-pin 32-bit Propeller costing $7 where a much smaller 8-bit device costing 50c could be used. Moreover, it wouldn't take an experienced designer any longer to write the code for a PIC, say, than it would for him to write it for the Propeller.
Why the endless need to make sure everyone knows a cheaper device can be used over the Prop? If an engineer doesn't know how to choose a processor for the job, then we don't need years of constant reminders of it on the Propeller forum to teach 'experienced engineers' about factoring in costs of production. Nobody here needs it perpetually beat over their heads Leon that other devices are cheaper and can perform better for certain roles. The forum is to promote and discuss the Propeller, not debate it's cost and shortcomings ad nauseam.
I was referring to an application that was going into production. No one in their right mind would use a 44-pin 32-bit Propeller costing $7 where a much smaller 8-bit device costing 50c could be used. Moreover, it wouldn't take an experienced designer any longer to write the code for a PIC, say, than it would for him to write it for the Propeller.
Leon, you and I know we are not in our right mind anyway. I mean what engineer would use such a weird chip like the Propeller??? It's not even a proper CPU, it doesn't even have any interrupts. Who would design a chip like that???? Sheesh!
I am more and more inclined these days to use a Propeller even for those simple jobs that I know a 50c chip will do. You know what? I get far more done and far more quickly and I have plenty of debugging capacity to boot, just plug in a TV monitor or a terminal and problem solved! If this item looks to take off in volume then I don't have a problem with redoing it with the 50c chip if needed. After all, the Prop has proved it works and that must make the job of converting so much easier and also well defined that you now know WHICH 50c chip WILL do it.
While some of us help to develop tools to improve development on the Prop, others stand on the sidelines and continually point out the deficiencies. Constructive criticism is welcomed, but being contrary all the time is just plain silly and nonproductive.
I'd rather start off with the 50c chip in the first place, if only because of the excellent debugging facilities which are lacking with the Propeller.
????? Have you lost your marbles? I have used almost every kind of micro under the sun but the Prop cogs are debuggers in themselves and let's not forget Viewport? I think you have spent too much time on the forum debating individual design choices which ultimately cannot be the subject of debate. You like bananas? Well just eat bananas then, don't try to turn oranges into bananas otherwise you will end up bananas yourself. (oh oh, too late
You have TV, VGA possibility. You have possibility to run PASM code in one COG --> write results to HUB and display on TV, VGA ----> NOW say me what more YOU need for in circuit debugging ....!!!!!....????
Viewport won't debug assembler programs, AFAIK, or C.
Granted, one can use a cog to debug code running on other cogs. However, it doesn't compare with the in-circuit debugging facilities offered by most of other MCUs.
It is not your role in life to educate people on how to make financial decisions. It is arrogance and foolishness to continue to tell people that you know best how to make decisions on choices.
It is not the purpose of the Parallax forum to educate professional engineers as to what product will be most cost effective.
How many times do you need to repeat the same thing over and over again? A few of you are baiting the forum strictly for the purposes of debate and argument.
If the Propeller would serve the purposes of cost, debugging, access to silicon, etc as the complaints have been logged, what affect could you personally have on annual sales of Propellers? Or is this just pure academic bluster on your parts for self gratification that you were able to diminish the product with your knowledge of its defects compared to others?
Please post your estimated sales of Props that you are sure that you could muster.
I don't respond to bait trolling with direct answers.
However, why come on a forum that is promoting a specific brand, and daily offer advice that Microchip is better suited... year after year? Do you go on Apple forums and daily tell them that PC's are cheaper? Do you go to Mercedes Benz dealerships and tell the people walking around that the car is overpriced and lacks features that Lexus does have as standard?
It does not make ANY sense to spend the amount of time you spend on a forum for a chip you consider inadequate on many levels. It just doesn't. With the exception of one possible idea, which is you have an audience to proclaim your knowledge. There are times it would surely make sense that you are acting as a surrogate for Microchip. When you already know the deficiencies of the Prop compared to the pics(in your estimation), yet still spend the time on the Parallax site offering up Microchip as a better alternative(often daily), then that smacks of your primary intent here to promote another product. In either case, whether directly associated with Microchip or as just an obsessed fan, your promotion of other products day in and day out is simply lacking in tact, taste, and common sense.
I was referring to the PIC10F320 that I mentioned previously, they cost about 50c in quantity. For such a tiny device, it has a surprising amount of functionality:
and can do some things that the Propeller can't do.
Neat looking chip. Looking at the data sheet for it I notice that it has four IO pins with one of them dedicated to input only. That combined with under 500B of program space and 64B or ram means that none of the things that I've done with the propeller could possibly be done on it. I'm sure there are applications that your $.50 part would be very well suited for but it would take a lot of those $.50 chips to give me 28 IO pins and a lot more to get them to all work together at a single task using those 28 IO pins!!
I understand that there are tasks for which a chip like that is better suited but my biggest issue with the prop (it's still a lot and the prop2 will be a major help) has to do do with it's limitation in IO. It would be nice if the timers could do more and there were on chip A/D converters (on the prop2 every pin will do A/D), etc but I'd trade that all for more IO pins and internal memory!! Getting a chip with eight cores each running at 80MHZ and the and 2 hardware counter/timers+ per core generating two PWM outputs is "easy-peasy". The FPGA capability is nice but not that useful with only 4 IO pins and trivial to do in software on a core. I'd bet with a bit of thought I could fit 2 PWM generators and "logic cell" capability of your $.50 part into a single core and still have clock cycles left over.
While I'm sure that we can all agree that the prop isn't perfect and can (and is) be improved on. It's still an amazing micro-controller. It's not and never was intended to be a general purpose micro-processor and I don't think any of us that it would be good in that role.
I don't respond to bait trolling with direct answers.
However, why come on a forum that is promoting a specific brand, and daily offer advice that Microchip is better suited... year after year? Do you go on Apple forums and daily tell them that PC's are cheaper? Do you go to Mercedes Benz dealerships and tell the people walking around that the car is overpriced and lacks features that Lexus does have as standard?
It does not make ANY sense to spend the amount of time you spend on a forum for a chip you consider inadequate on many levels. It just doesn't. With the exception of one possible idea, which is you have an audience to proclaim your knowledge. There are times it would surely make sense that you are acting as a surrogate for Microchip. When you already know the deficiencies of the Prop compared to the pics(in your estimation), yet still spend the time on the Parallax site offering up Microchip as a better alternative(often daily), then that smacks of your primary intent here to promote another product. In either case, whether directly associated with Microchip or as just an obsessed fan, your promotion of other products day in and day out is simply lacking in tact, taste, and common sense.
The point I've been trying to make is that the Propeller isn't suited to every application under the sun, as some of its proponents claim. In fact, I've only ever been involved with one project where it was the ideal solution, and something else like an ARM, AVR or PIC has always been more suited to other projects.
Oh, so this is a 'I must have the last word' syndrome, where there is no way you will let someone else have an opinion(right or wrong) without the obsessive need to (in effect) point out that Parallax should really just stop selling the Propeller because of the so called inadequacies on a commercial level. Now it makes sense. Just curious though, do you think that after all of the posts you have made promoting Microchip that you have A. helped Parallax sales or B. discouraged Parallax sales or C. no net effect in Parallax sales, but you got to debate it for another week? I am no expert, but my guess is that Parallax is here to sell and promote their own product, not educate the world on how to choose the best product that suits the cost and functionality.
There is a time to let it go. If you have set the rules here on posting, which you suggest are that if you see someone in error thinking the Prop is suited to every application under the sun that you must correct them, then the precedent should allow for others to give you advice when you are wrong. Stop promoting Microchip daily on the Parallax forum.
So, Jim, your major frustration with the Propeller is it doesn't pop popcorn in adequate volumes? I think Microchip has a DSP (Digital Super Popper) in their PIC line but I'd have to refer you to their forums for more info.
The Parallax Popeller 2 should address that with its built in CLUT (Corn Load Up Table).
So, Jim, your major frustration with the Propeller is it doesn't pop popcorn in adequate volumes? I think Microchip has a DSP (Digital Super Popper) in their PIC line but I'd have to refer you to their forums for more info.
The Parallax Popeller 2 should address that with its built in CLUT (Corn Load Up Table).
Rick,
I was actually looking at XMOS (Xtra More Organic Salted)
How much extra hardware that facilities need to be usable.
On propeller I don't need more hardware ---> Only one monitor and Key-Board.
And as You mentioned ---> Even BASIC --- Viewport won't debug assembler programs, AFAIK, or C.
Viewport won't debug assembler programs, AFAIK, or C.
Granted, one can use a cog to debug code running on other cogs. However, it doesn't compare with the in-circuit debugging facilities offered by most of other MCUs.
With other MCUs one generally needs something like a JTAG interface, or a proprietary debugger/programmer, which can cost about the same as a Prop Plug, and come with a similar USB interface. They are often included on manufacturers' development boards. They are typically used with the IDE that is used for software development.
We all know it isn't going to be implemented in Prop 2. That has been fact for a long time.
So then, why continue? Seriously. I don't mean my question to be negative. I really, truly don't understand. There are times and places for that kind of advocacy, and it's in our best interest to engage in said advocacy during those times and in those places.
Now is not the time nor the place, so why continue?
We all know it isn't going to be implemented in Prop 2. That has been fact for a long time.
So then, why continue? Seriously. I don't mean my question to be negative. I really, truly don't understand. There are times and places for that kind of advocacy, and it's in our best interests to engage in said advocacy during those times and in those places.
Now is not the time nor the place, so why continue?
Comments
Maybe, But maybe not so fast.
It depends on the available investment for software.
Not IN, but FOR.
If the software can be knocked out in a dozen lines or so then
software costs aren't a big expense.
Hardware costs that help minimize software costs seems to be money well spent.
If it takes a lot of software then processor cost aren't really all that large.
Basically, if the project is worth doing then the costs are sustainable.
Or they are not.
And it's not.
Leon, you and I know we are not in our right mind anyway. I mean what engineer would use such a weird chip like the Propeller??? It's not even a proper CPU, it doesn't even have any interrupts. Who would design a chip like that???? Sheesh!
I am more and more inclined these days to use a Propeller even for those simple jobs that I know a 50c chip will do. You know what? I get far more done and far more quickly and I have plenty of debugging capacity to boot, just plug in a TV monitor or a terminal and problem solved! If this item looks to take off in volume then I don't have a problem with redoing it with the 50c chip if needed. After all, the Prop has proved it works and that must make the job of converting so much easier and also well defined that you now know WHICH 50c chip WILL do it.
I don't understand that thinking.
You have TV, VGA possibility. You have possibility to run PASM code in one COG --> write results to HUB and display on TV, VGA ----> NOW say me what more YOU need for in circuit debugging ....!!!!!....????
Granted, one can use a cog to debug code running on other cogs. However, it doesn't compare with the in-circuit debugging facilities offered by most of other MCUs.
It is not the purpose of the Parallax forum to educate professional engineers as to what product will be most cost effective.
How many times do you need to repeat the same thing over and over again? A few of you are baiting the forum strictly for the purposes of debate and argument.
If the Propeller would serve the purposes of cost, debugging, access to silicon, etc as the complaints have been logged, what affect could you personally have on annual sales of Propellers? Or is this just pure academic bluster on your parts for self gratification that you were able to diminish the product with your knowledge of its defects compared to others?
Please post your estimated sales of Props that you are sure that you could muster.
However, why come on a forum that is promoting a specific brand, and daily offer advice that Microchip is better suited... year after year? Do you go on Apple forums and daily tell them that PC's are cheaper? Do you go to Mercedes Benz dealerships and tell the people walking around that the car is overpriced and lacks features that Lexus does have as standard?
It does not make ANY sense to spend the amount of time you spend on a forum for a chip you consider inadequate on many levels. It just doesn't. With the exception of one possible idea, which is you have an audience to proclaim your knowledge. There are times it would surely make sense that you are acting as a surrogate for Microchip. When you already know the deficiencies of the Prop compared to the pics(in your estimation), yet still spend the time on the Parallax site offering up Microchip as a better alternative(often daily), then that smacks of your primary intent here to promote another product. In either case, whether directly associated with Microchip or as just an obsessed fan, your promotion of other products day in and day out is simply lacking in tact, taste, and common sense.
Neat looking chip. Looking at the data sheet for it I notice that it has four IO pins with one of them dedicated to input only. That combined with under 500B of program space and 64B or ram means that none of the things that I've done with the propeller could possibly be done on it. I'm sure there are applications that your $.50 part would be very well suited for but it would take a lot of those $.50 chips to give me 28 IO pins and a lot more to get them to all work together at a single task using those 28 IO pins!!
I understand that there are tasks for which a chip like that is better suited but my biggest issue with the prop (it's still a lot and the prop2 will be a major help) has to do do with it's limitation in IO. It would be nice if the timers could do more and there were on chip A/D converters (on the prop2 every pin will do A/D), etc but I'd trade that all for more IO pins and internal memory!! Getting a chip with eight cores each running at 80MHZ and the and 2 hardware counter/timers+ per core generating two PWM outputs is "easy-peasy". The FPGA capability is nice but not that useful with only 4 IO pins and trivial to do in software on a core. I'd bet with a bit of thought I could fit 2 PWM generators and "logic cell" capability of your $.50 part into a single core and still have clock cycles left over.
While I'm sure that we can all agree that the prop isn't perfect and can (and is) be improved on. It's still an amazing micro-controller. It's not and never was intended to be a general purpose micro-processor and I don't think any of us that it would be good in that role.
The point I've been trying to make is that the Propeller isn't suited to every application under the sun, as some of its proponents claim. In fact, I've only ever been involved with one project where it was the ideal solution, and something else like an ARM, AVR or PIC has always been more suited to other projects.
There is a time to let it go. If you have set the rules here on posting, which you suggest are that if you see someone in error thinking the Prop is suited to every application under the sun that you must correct them, then the precedent should allow for others to give you advice when you are wrong. Stop promoting Microchip daily on the Parallax forum.
10 pages....and I've run out of popcorn....
The Parallax Popeller 2 should address that with its built in CLUT (Corn Load Up Table).
Rick,
I was actually looking at XMOS (Xtra More Organic Salted)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Brilliant!
Now Im are very confused:
How much extra hardware that facilities need to be usable.
On propeller I don't need more hardware ---> Only one monitor and Key-Board.
And as You mentioned ---> Even BASIC --- Viewport won't debug assembler programs, AFAIK, or C.
And still without any extra DEBUGGING hardware.
This is the IDE I use for ARM development:
http://www.rowley.co.uk/arm/index.htm
and this is the JTAG adapter:
http://www.rowley.co.uk/arm/CrossConnect.htm
Rowley CrossWorks can also use many other JTAG adapters.
So then, why continue? Seriously. I don't mean my question to be negative. I really, truly don't understand. There are times and places for that kind of advocacy, and it's in our best interest to engage in said advocacy during those times and in those places.
Now is not the time nor the place, so why continue?
Obviously just for the purposes of antagonizing the forum.
Sapieha raised the matter, take it up with him!