Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
PropBasic Popularity — Parallax Forums

PropBasic Popularity

BatangBatang Posts: 234
edited 2013-05-24 13:35 in Propeller 1
Quote from another thread:
Are we going to see some support for PropBASIC or are we stuck with GCC for a high level language when PASM-type performance is required?,

Hi Guys

If you could take the time to

1. Let me know the popularity of PropBasic i.e. anyone using it and if so some feedback.
2. What if anything it requires to make it more usable etc.

This is a survey of sorts.

Cheers.
«13456

Comments

  • Mike GreenMike Green Posts: 23,101
    edited 2013-05-20 06:55
    "popularity of PropBasic"

    Who knows? Clearly some people are using it, but there are no surveys and it would be difficult to do one in a meaningful way in a short period of time.

    "more popular"

    Usually tools become more popular when people do interesting projects and publish detailed descriptions of them that demonstrate their unique features. Parallax isn't going to do it for you and Bean is busy enough already
  • RsadeikaRsadeika Posts: 3,837
    edited 2013-05-20 07:57
    I think in order for PropBasic to become "more popular" it has to become a stand alone program. When Bean attached it to BST, well, everybody can see what the response has been. In another thread I already gave my opinion on having it become attached to SimpleIDE, keep SimpleIDE, simple. The other part is the documentation, the last bit of docs, that I read, did not even cover what the real capability of PropBasic is. Maybe for the hard core users, PropBasic should become a Command Prompt Window setup, but probably the Linux people will start to complain that they cannot run it.

    Also, I think that PropBasic can only address LMM, not to sure as too whether the "users" are using/need XMM capabilities. So, make it a stand alone project then maybe I would give it another try. Not to divert this thread, but what ever happened to Propeller Basic?

    Ray
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2013-05-20 08:36
    Batang wrote: »
    Quote from another thread:


    Hi Guys

    If you could take the time to

    1. Let me know the popularity of PropBasic i.e. anyone using it and if so some feedback.
    2. What if anything it requires to make it more usable etc.

    This is a survey of sorts.

    Cheers.
    Another question that I guess only Bean can answer is if he intends to port PropBasic to P2. I assume the answer is yes but it would be nice to hear it from him.
  • LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
    edited 2013-05-20 08:49
    Consider one of the Forth on the Propeller applications as an alternative to Basic on the Propeller.

    PropForth and Tachyon Forth are active and interactive. Both have said they will have Propeller 2 versions.

    For early development of a product, where wiring and timing solutions need to be resolved, an interactive software is much faster, less frustrating than a write-compile-load language.

    After you have verified all the details, it is much easier to switch over to Spin, C, or Pasm to complete your application.

    At the least, download a copy of PropForth or Tachyon Forth and try it out. You may actual find you like it more than Basic on the Propeller.
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2013-05-20 08:58
    Loopy Byteloose wrote: »
    Consider one of the Forth on the Propeller applications as an alternative to Basic on the Propeller.

    PropForth and Tachyon Forth are active and interactive. Both have said they will have Propeller 2 versions.

    For early development of a product, where wiring and timing solutions need to be resolved, an interactive software is much faster, less frustrating than a write-compile-load language.

    After you have verified all the details, it is much easier to switch over to Spin, C, or Pasm to complete your application.

    At the least, download a copy of PropForth or Tachyon Forth and try it out. You may actual find you like it more than Basic on the Propeller.
    What about pfth? Is that still supported? I ported that to the P2 quite a while ago as an early experiment.
  • tdg8934tdg8934 Posts: 126
    edited 2013-05-20 09:07
    You should also consider other variants of BASIC such as the Pocket Mini Computer and it's PMC BASIC. Very nice and easy to use!

    http://propellerpowered.us/index.php?route=product/product&path=25_73&product_id=55

    Tim
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2013-05-20 09:15
    tdg8934 wrote: »
    You should also consider other variants of BASIC such as the Pocket Mini Computer and it's PMC BASIC. Very nice and easy to use!

    http://propellerpowered.us/index.php?route=product/product&path=25_73&product_id=55

    Tim
    The versions of FemtoBasic like PMC BASIC are good for simple experiments but they aren't really up to application development like PropBasic. It compiles to fast LMM code.
  • jonesjones Posts: 281
    edited 2013-05-20 09:19
    David Betz wrote: »
    Another question that I guess only Bean can answer is if he intends to port PropBasic to P2. I assume the answer is yes but it would be nice to hear it from him.

    Quote from Bean in another thread. He was asked if there would be a version of PropBasic for the Prop2: "Not unless the Prop2 IDE supports external compilers. I've put a lot of work into PropBasic and I've come the conclusion that unless you can use the Parallax IDE, the language will never really take off and be used by the masses."
  • BatangBatang Posts: 234
    edited 2013-05-20 09:24
    I am preempting a bit now, but this is what is in the works.

    So hence the survey.

    studio.jpg
    studio2.jpg
    studio3.jpg
    studio.jpg
    1024 x 642 - 51K
    studio2.jpg
    1024 x 583 - 45K
    studio3.jpg
    1024 x 583 - 51K
  • KC_RobKC_Rob Posts: 465
    edited 2013-05-20 09:29
    Batang wrote: »
    I am preempting a bit now, but this is what is in the works.

    So hence the survey.

    Attachment not found.
    Build the (nice) tools and people will use them. I think there's evidence for enough interest in BASIC shown here in the forums to safely say that.
  • tritoniumtritonium Posts: 543
    edited 2013-05-20 09:35
    Batang wrote: »
    I am preempting a bit now, but this is what is in the works.

    So hence the survey.

    studio.jpg

    Oh yes please.
    How much and who do I pay it to.
    Is Bean getting a share??

    Dave
  • BatangBatang Posts: 234
    edited 2013-05-20 09:37
    Oh yes please.
    How much and who do I pay it to.
    Is Bean getting a share??

    It will be free to download and use:)

    Cheers.
  • KC_RobKC_Rob Posts: 465
    edited 2013-05-20 09:38
    Loopy Byteloose wrote: »
    Consider one of the Forth on the Propeller applications as an alternative to Basic on the Propeller.

    PropForth and Tachyon Forth are active and interactive. Both have said they will have Propeller 2 versions. ...
    Here I agree with you completely. Forth support for the Propeller is excellent, better than what I've found elsewhere, all or most of it free and MIT licensed. I can't say enough about how good and usable it is.

    All that said, Forth would be a huge leap for someone accustomed to BASIC. Certainly BASIC coders should be capable of grasping Forth, but how attractive an option learning Forth is for them is another question altogether.
  • tritoniumtritonium Posts: 543
    edited 2013-05-20 09:47
    Batang wrote: »
    It will be free to download and use:)

    Cheers.

    Ok, NOW I'm getting excited about the prop2.
    12 months ago it was the Raspberry Pi, but it only seems to really be useful with Linux.
    I'm currently struggling with 'C' on the arduino it's ok but...
    But a prop2 with propbasic is now my dream machine.

    Dave
  • jonesjones Posts: 281
    edited 2013-05-20 09:54
    When I looked at Forth years ago it just didn't seem to fit the way my brain works. One thing to consider is that some PropBasic users aren't necessarily "Basic coders". I'd been using C on PICs when I decided to use a Prop for a project. I looked at Spin and liked it, but I needed a custom video driver and not only would PropBasic allow me to write fast cog code, but Bean supplied an example video driver I was able to easily modify to do what I needed, no PASM required. It was just the path of least resistance.
  • KC_RobKC_Rob Posts: 465
    edited 2013-05-20 10:02
    jones wrote: »
    When I looked at Forth years ago it just didn't seem to fit the way my brain works.
    True. Forth can appear, well, labyrinthine no matter your programming background. So for many it almost certainly is not the "path of least resistance." But if you know Forth, or are interested in learning Forth, Propeller is an excellent way to go.
  • ColeyColey Posts: 1,110
    edited 2013-05-20 10:35
    I'd certainly use it.
    PropBASIC has helped me a few times with rapid prototype development that ultimately led to 2 successful project wins :smile:
    There are many people on this forum that scoff at BASIC being a lesser language than their own preference but I think it's great for getting things working quickly and certainly shouldn't be underestimated.

    Normally I'd use SPIN but for raw speed PropBASIC is perfect.

    I really hope Bean can do a version for Prop2.

    Coley.
  • Dave HeinDave Hein Posts: 6,347
    edited 2013-05-20 11:47
    David Betz wrote: »
    What about pfth? Is that still supported? I ported that to the P2 quite a while ago as an early experiment.
    pfth was never really "supported". It was more of a learning experience for me. I learned enough from it so that I could compare Forth with other languages. Forth is a difficult language because of the use of the stack for variables and parameters instead of using symbolic variable names. Yes, there are global variables, but they are inefficient to use, and they are global. Experienced Forth programmers tend to write efficient code that is hard for non-experienced programmers to understand because of the stack usage. Also, PropForth and Tachyon do not support ANS Forth, which makes portability a problem.

    Bean's PropBasic is an excellent programming language for the Prop. It generates both COG PASM and LMM PASM. I think of PropBasic as a high-level assembly language for the Prop. I agree with the comment that PropBasic would be more highly utilized if it had it's own IDE.
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2013-05-20 11:59
    Dave Hein wrote: »
    pfth was never really "supported". It was more of a learning experience for me. I learned enough from it so that I could compare Forth with other languages. Forth is a difficult language because of the use of the stack for variables and parameters instead of using symbolic variable names. Yes, there are global variables, but they are inefficient to use, and they are global. Experienced Forth programmers tend to write efficient code that is hard for non-experienced programmers to understand because of the stack usage. Also, PropForth and Tachyon do not support ANS Forth, which makes portability a problem.
    Too bad about pfth not being supported. I enjoyed reading the code enough to get it limping along on P2. However, while I like the idea of Forth in theory, I never seem to get very far when I try to learn it. It's not a fault of Forth itself. More my own fault for not being willing to invest enough time to become proficient in it.
  • Oldbitcollector (Jeff)Oldbitcollector (Jeff) Posts: 8,091
    edited 2013-05-20 12:08
    PropBASIC fills an interesting gap between the BASIC STAMP and the Propeller. I certainly hope we will see it supported for Prop2. It will need to break away from BST at some point.

    Jeff
  • TinkersALotTinkersALot Posts: 535
    edited 2013-05-20 12:10
    jones wrote: »
    Quote from Bean in another thread. He was asked if there would be a version of PropBasic for the Prop2: "Not unless the Prop2 IDE supports external compilers. I've put a lot of work into PropBasic and I've come the conclusion that unless you can use the Parallax IDE, the language will never really take off and be used by the masses."

    I wonder if instead of it "just going away" if Bean would ever consider opening up the source to that effort?
  • jazzedjazzed Posts: 11,803
    edited 2013-05-20 12:35
    Bean asked if I could find a way to support PropBASIC with SimpleIDE once. At the time I mentioned I'm too busy, and this is still very true (hopefully I'm near the point where I can move freely to the next project). My highest priority with the next project is a Propeller-Tool-like SimpleIDE for SPIN.

    Looks like Batang has time and has something started using Visual Studio. He does good work, and I look forward to seeing the IDE develop. Hopefully Bean will work closely with Batang to make the tool fit nicely.
  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,173
    edited 2013-05-20 13:01
    jones wrote: »
    Quote from Bean in another thread. He was asked if there would be a version of PropBasic for the Prop2: "Not unless the Prop2 IDE supports external compilers. I've put a lot of work into PropBasic and I've come the conclusion that unless you can use the Parallax IDE, the language will never really take off and be used by the masses."

    Bean is right, but surely external compiler support is a 'no brainer' on any serious IDE ?

    All it needs (initially) is a means to call a batch file, and then download the output code.

    That gets you a 'build and send' working system.

    Next to add are things like
    * Syntax Highlighting (but someone can use an external editor in the short term)
    * Symbols and Simulation
  • BeanBean Posts: 8,129
    edited 2013-05-20 14:35
    Thanks for all the comments about PropBasic.

    I look forward to working with Batang on an IDE, but would still like to get it into the "official" propeller IDE (I guess that is SimpleIDE now).

    From what I've seen of the Prop2 the conversion will not be simple. The compiler was a translation of SXB and the code is best called "a mess that works". Much of the code is written to look for special cases to make the code as small as possible to fit within the cogs limited RAM.

    It also trys to generate code that can be easily understood by someone wanting to learn PASM.

    For all it's faults it is one thing..."FAST". Being a single pass compiler means it compiles quickly. And because it looks for all these special cases, the generated code is pretty fast for compiled BASIC.

    For those interested, the compiler is written in Delphi 7 and can be compiled with lazarus with very few changes. (This is what BradC did for BST).

    I think if I were to make a Prop2 version, I would like to start fresh and make something easier to use at the expense of generating easily understandable PASM code. One thing for sure it would have complete expression evaluation. This is one thing I never liked about the current version.

    Bean
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2013-05-20 14:41
    Bean wrote: »
    One thing for sure it would have complete expression evaluation. This is one thing I never liked about the current version.

    Bean

    Maybe you can port the expression parser you wrote for your embedded basic? :-)
  • prof_brainoprof_braino Posts: 4,313
    edited 2013-05-20 20:21
    KC_Rob wrote: »
    ... Forth would be a huge leap for someone accustomed to BASIC. Certainly BASIC coders should be capable of grasping Forth, but how attractive an option learning Forth is for them is another question altogether.

    I would suggest that anyone that can use a calculator can use forth. And not an RPN calculator, I could never figure those out.
  • prof_brainoprof_braino Posts: 4,313
    edited 2013-05-20 20:24
    Batang wrote: »
    1. Let me know the popularity of PropBasic i.e. anyone using it and if so some feedback.
    2. What if anything it requires to make it more usable etc.

    This is a survey of sorts.

    Is there a count of downloads for any versions?
  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,173
    edited 2013-05-20 20:51
    Bean wrote: »
    For those interested, the compiler is written in Delphi 7 and can be compiled with lazarus with very few changes. (This is what BradC did for BST).

    What problems occur if you try to use this with SimpleIDE ?

    A quick look at SimpleIDE pdf shows two exe's it can call, with a search option.

    One is compiler is propellor-elf--gcc.exe and the other is bstc.exe

    Compiler error messages seem to be Filename:line#:Col#:ErrorString

    None of that looks too specialized ?
  • User NameUser Name Posts: 1,451
    edited 2013-05-21 16:15
    Coley wrote: »
    There are many people on this forum that scoff at BASIC being a lesser language than their own preference but I think it's great for getting things working quickly and certainly shouldn't be underestimated.

    I'm one of those BASIC scoffers. Yet your comment brings to mind a situation once where I had a 5KW device I needed to control, and my only asset was an old-fashioned IBM PC - I mean with an 8088 and the original green screen monitor. So I clipped an SSR to the speaker inside the case and used SOUND commands in BASICA to drive the SSR directly. It took 30 minutes to implement and was a rousing success that was used for years afterward. A propensity to scoff at BASIC must be, in part, culturally inspired. It certainly isn't because it is useless, or anything like that.
  • pmrobertpmrobert Posts: 675
    edited 2013-05-21 16:40
    Oldbitcollector (Jeff) wrote: »
    PropBASIC fills an interesting gap between the BASIC STAMP and the Propeller. I certainly hope we will see it supported for Prop2. It will need to break away from BST at some point.

    Jeff

    It already has broken away from BST. The .exe runs very nicely under Geany, Notepad++, etc. when they're properly configured.

    -Mike
Sign In or Register to comment.