Hey Matt, I sent it to you yesterday through PM. I'll send it again. It shows in my sent items that I sent it, but you probably get tons of emails a day lol. I am finding quite a bit of info on Parallax now. It seems to be a lot more beginner friendly than Adruino. When I bought all this stuff, I also bought some Adruino starter goodies and the mini and I just can't really find anything for absolute beginners. But, I could be searching the wrong areas too.
Thanks for all the added info guys. Im taking notes. I do have another question a bit off topic since PIC programming was mentioned. I bought this cheapo PIC. it was like 14 bucks from china on Ebay. My common sense is telling me that you get what you pay for. Im interestied in learning to mess with the pic also. heres a photo of it. Yay or nay??. It is not recognized when I plug it into the computer by any pic application I have tried. Just fiddling around with it, I thought I should get at least something on the com port??. Maybe its just junk. The Pic chip is a 16F877A.
You really need to talk to PIC users to get that PIC board running. I have something similar and never use it as I have to write code in PIC assembly language, then compile it, and finally load it.
PICs come in a huge variety of chips, and each one is a bit different to learn. So each change in chip requires some more study. It is so much easier to just program a Propeller with features in software than to rely on features built into the silicon and having a huge list of special use registers.
I suspect you have a program for it or that the board will allow programing via the USB. But it isn't going to talk to you. .. it will just download and burn the binary. Microchip provides all the software and documentation. Yahoo groups have some active PIC user groups.
It is a whole different world with a very different kind of support experience... for me personally.. to many details that require buying another Pic and learning another Assembly language, unless you buy a rather expensive PICBasic or C for PIC compiler.
Even then, you won't find a lot of users helping you with your PICBasic or C for PIC.... it is proprietary stuff.
Loopy, Matt, someone recommended Forth to me and I will be diving into it. I have a lot of lower level knowledge in automotive electronics and motorcycle performance electronics. i have to say that even finding a starting point to learning the programming side of this stuff has proven more challenging than all my years of being in the performance industry. I am hooked on it already no doubt. Even though I am having a rough start. I should tell you my direction that I am trying to move in with all of this. There seems to be a huge gap between programming and the automotive side (at the mom and pops type shops like myself). I hope to help bridge that gap in my own learning. You probably see where Im going with this . Communicating with ECU's that have Denso, and mitsubishi processors in them. there are a few big companies that sell expensive interfacing devices for our beloved performance vehicles and I have spent some significant money in some of this stuff, but I want more. I want to be one of the guys pioneering some of this stuff. Yes my ambitions are big, but Im trying not to let that discourage me. That being said, if anyone has any special knowledge with TTL, CAN communication, I'm hoping to become your best friend in my endevor .
Okay... if you want Forth on the Propeller... you may need a refresher course in Forth.
Leo Brodie's Starting Forth is still available online and the best place ever to start.
I created a list of the lexicon that you learn on a chapter by chapter basis, so it is easier to recall.
The Propeller has 3 versions of Forth, Tachyon Forth, PropForth, and pfth. My personal preference for learning is currently pfth as it attempts to conform to ANS Forth, which has published tutorials online... such as 'And so Forth'.
I also use GForth on a Linux machine for study, but it can be gotten for Windows and Apples and has its own world of ANS Forth documents.
CANbus and the MCP2551 and MCP2515 chip set are an old love of mine and work well with the Propeller, but I have no ECU knowledge as I haven't had an automobile for about 25 years. My CANbus knowledge doesn't migrate into the mysterious world of ECUs.
Someone recently here created an application that has the Propeller providing basic automotive info -- engine temperature, RPM, and such on a VGA that used a CANbus interface. SO there is some interest. I am just not the right guy.
Forth, CANbus, and a VGA display might be a winning combo for hacking ECU codes into a custom setup... and is possible to do. You might find that two Propellers.. one for the VGA terminal dumb terminal and another for the CANbus to ECU management may be required to do anything ambitious. VGA tends to hog one Propeller, and Forth would hog the other.
Most of the lexicon in Chapter 3 of Stating Forth does not apply to Forth on the Propeller.. program code is not stored in Blocks, but can be stored in files on and SDcard.
Take a look at what Dave Hein is doing with SpinX on the Propeller. You will need to attach and SDcard interface to the QuickStart to have this enhanced capacity... but it is a very rewarding enhancement.
Since you have the expensive CANbus to ECU interfacing equipment, you might be able to splice in a Propeller to snoop the raw codes. The lack of access to such equipment has been a barrier to most that show an interest in CANbus and ECUs on the Propeller.
Hey New - all I got in your PM was an email address - I can't email a pin finder and paperback book...Shipping/Mailing address is preferable ;-)
-MattG
since PIC programming was mentioned. I bought this cheapo PIC. it was like 14 bucks from china on Ebay. My common sense is telling me that you get what you pay for. Im interestied in learning to mess with the pic also. heres a photo of it. Yay or nay??. It is not recognized when I plug it into the computer by any pic application I have tried. Just fiddling around with it, I thought I should get at least something on the com port??. Maybe its just junk. The Pic chip is a 16F877A.
That looks like an experimenter board. A PIC chip with some other hardware, sorta like a quickstart board.
I started with PICs 4 years ago, just as a winter time hobby. I only bought the PICs and made my own boards with bread board. There are lots of good tutorials on the web. I started with a very basic, some say obsolete chip, the
PIC16F84. Surprisingly, the newest most advanced PICs are the least expensive. Usually less than $3. The assembly instruction set for the less advanced PICs is only 35 instructions. The more advanced ones use the same instructions and add about that many more. Most of those are combinations or the ones you wished you had in the basics.
I'm glad I started with PICs and just came to the Propeller as a stepping stone to learning C, then I'm going back to PICs.
SOME SAY CHEVY's, SOME SAY FORDs! It's all in what turns you on
Aaron
I'm a nut for templates, and as I use the QuickStart in many projects I created a template for it. You may find it useful. The Propeller tool lets you specify a file as a template which will save the you the Open and Save As trouble.
Thanks fellas. I took a few days off from the stuff to try the Arduino some more. I actually am getting somewhere with learning basic C. Now back to Prop. I've took note of the tutorials you guys mentioned. Matt- did you get my home address?. I did send it. For some strange reason I am only seeing 1 sent and recieved message in my box and I know there were several, so plz let me know that you got it. if you didn't, just shoot me your regular email and I'll send it that way!!.
Also, if I wanted to write a function for my prop to read 3 analog inputs, speed (freq) and tach (freq), log these to an SD card, does that sound like something I could do or do I need to go shopping for more parts??. I do have an SD shield.
Analog inputs on the Propeller 1 requires some external support.
The Propeller 2 will have built in ADC and DAC on every i/o pin, but we are not there yet.
That leads to two choices.
[a] use an external ADC chip, in your case that might be one with 4 ADCs multiplexed that communicated serially (with SPI) or create Sigma-Delta ADC interfaces using a few small components near the i/o pins.
Personally, I prefer the first option for a quick solution. The Sigma-Delta ADC needs to be built into a soldered board to have any reliability. There are a lot of good ADC chips around and for most things you don't need more than 10 bits of accuracy.
But it really is up to you which approach offers you the most inspiring learning path. The Propeller OBEX has objects that provide for both.
Meanwhile, get the SDcard reading. That shouldn't be too hard. Parallax's SDcard holder has all the pullup resistors properly included, some other ones omit them. The pullup resistors are necessary and need to be included.
I believe Matt did acknowledge that he ONLY got your email address, not enough to mail you something. Look through the above postings by Matt for the most recent.
ok,thank you. I dont know if you have ever heard this from anyone, but after reading the first 4 chapters of the forth tutorial intro, It seems more complicated to me than C has been so far. Maybe I'm just wired wrong. Everyone agrees that forth is very simple but I'm having a hard time grasping even the basics. C just makes more sense for me for some reason. I resent my home address to him, but Ill just post it right here so I know that he gets it... 5561 Kapok Dr. Jackson, MI 49203. in your experience, do you think for the sensing I was talking about, would be better to do it the "C" way and with the Arduino board I have??. I know that with that board I have everything I need to do it, with the exception of the complete know how.
Please no one send any "test" GPS missles to my address lol
Analog inputs on the Propeller 1 requires some external support.
The Propeller 2 will have built in ADC and DAC on every i/o pin, but we are not there yet.
That leads to two choices.
[a] use an external ADC chip, in your case that might be one with 4 ADCs multiplexed that communicated serially (with SPI) or create Sigma-Delta ADC interfaces using a few small components near the i/o pins.
Personally, I prefer the first option for a quick solution. The Sigma-Delta ADC needs to be built into a soldered board to have any reliability. There are a lot of good ADC chips around and for most things you don't need more than 10 bits of accuracy.
But it really is up to you which approach offers you the most inspiring learning path. The Propeller OBEX has objects that provide for both.
Meanwhile, get the SDcard reading. That shouldn't be too hard. Parallax's SDcard holder has all the pullup resistors properly included, some other ones omit them. The pullup resistors are necessary and need to be included.
I believe Matt did acknowledge that he ONLY got your email address, not enough to mail you something. Look through the above postings by Matt for the most recent.
By all means, use C if you feel more confident and comfortable with it. There are plenty of savy C users for the Propeller that will gladly help you if you get stuck.
I enjoy Forth because it is interprettd.. so I can actually poke around and verify what is going on in the Propeller in realtime. And it is useful for realtime experimenting. In your case, if you had a CANbus interface tired into an automobile, you could create a Forth word... say 'Blink' on the fly to blink the headlights and you just enter Blink and it does it.
With C, you have to rewrite your code, recompile and load.
The Arduinio have several built-in ADCs. That does make getting analoge readings one-step closer to being done in a development process. But the Arduino won't provide you with a color VGA interface and the Propeller can. There are pro's and con's with each. ADC is certainly an important issue with a lot of projects and pushes a lot of people to preferring and Arduino or even a PIC (some have built-in ADCs).
I have a little CANbus board that has two ADC inputs on it and two logic high/low outputs. If you want to use the Propeller with CANbus, the ADC inputs can be else where. With CANbus, your terminal end can be a Propeller with video and keyboard, and you can have many different microcontrollers on the CANbus... some PICs have both the CANbus interface and multiple ADCs built-in.
Of course, the more variety you use... the more you have to remember about the different products. It gets confusing when you jump from Propeller to PICs to Arduinos, and so on. Some people handle the variety well and enjoy jumping around, others do not.
I don't know if you have ever heard this from anyone, but after reading the first 4 chapters of the forth tutorial intro, It seems more complicated to me than C has been so far. Maybe I'm just wired wrong.
You are not wired wrong. It's a perfectly normal allergic reaction. I suffer from it myself. Forth is a very minimal and simple language, as a result actually doing anything in it is more complicated and difficult. I have yet to reach that "ah ha" moment where I might see the point of it. Haven't given up yet though.
Even if Forth and C were equivalently easy my feeling is that you are going to find more support among the wider user base of C.
Having said all that I would use a Propeller over a small AVR/Arduino any day. Then the Propeller's Spin language is still a very good way to go. It's easy, you will get lot's of support here and there is a huge library of ready to use objects in the OBEX.
You are not wired wrong. It's a perfectly normal allergic reaction. I suffer from it myself. Forth is a very minimal and simple language, as a result actually doing anything in it is more complicated and difficult. I have yet to reach that "ah ha" moment where I might see the point of it. Haven't given up yet though.
Even if Forth and C were equivalently easy my feeling is that you are going to find more support among the wider user base of C.
Having said all that I would use a Propeller over a small AVR/Arduino any day. Then the Propeller's Spin language is still a very good way to go. It's easy, you will get lot's of support here and there is a huge library of ready to use objects in the OBEX.
Hello!
Well after a long absence from even considering the Prop for anything I, myself, just got an example program, in this case a demo included with the Prop ones for #27977-RT and that suffix means it survived those characters (all punctuation ones) at Radio Shack, to work.
Do all of you remember the Byte articles written by Steve Ciarcia? He wrote the Circuit Cellar column in the magazine. When the magazine started its slow spiral into nothing he spun it off to become an excellent magazine. Anyway, when he would build an excellent circuit design for something that would be used on of all things his S100 based Z-80 system, he would write the software for it, preliminary software that is, in BASIC. I view the whole idea behind writing programs for the Prop in that entire scheme.
Simple programs first in Spin, more complicated ones in the dialects that are available.
Ill keep going on it heater. I see your point too. It may just come to that lightbulb moment. Maybe in the process I will be able to get some decent knowledge in both areas, which is even better.
You are not wired wrong. It's a perfectly normal allergic reaction. I suffer from it myself. Forth is a very minimal and simple language, as a result actually doing anything in it is more complicated and difficult. I have yet to reach that "ah ha" moment where I might see the point of it. Haven't given up yet though.
I first tried to learn Forth back in the 80's and had the same reaction. There are a number of ways in which it zigs where other programming languages zag that I couldn't handle. My recent forays into it have finally paid off and I think I get it now. But I've had decades of programming experience since my first attempts as a teenager.
I start to be able to handle the zigging and zagging. When I was talking about that "Ah ha!" moment I was meaning that I have yet to see why I would want to zig instead of zag (or which ever way around it is). I have yet to see any benefit for all the extra hard work of zigging when a simple zag does the job just as well or better.
I do actually. From my perspective the use case where Forth pays off is creating a serial command language for controlling things. I think Dave Hein would probably call this the scripting use case. For my drawbot I created a word for each letter, these invoke other words like stroke or dash, which in turn invoke forward and rotate. At that point the robot can draw what you type into the terminal window which is kinda neat. I could do the same in C/C++, but I would have to build the parser for the remote commands rather than having them emerge as part of the program.
The other use case where it helps is that the Propeller and Arduino tools don't come with a debugger, so if you want to see what's happening in the program you are forever adding logging statements. Forth sidesteps that issue by being interactive, so you can directly inquire about program state. But this is more of an artifact of a specific environment which goes away on others.
ok,thank you. I dont know if you have ever heard this from anyone, but after reading the first 4 chapters of the forth tutorial intro, It seems more complicated to me than C has been so far. Maybe I'm just wired wrong. Everyone agrees that forth is very simple but I'm having a hard time grasping even the basics. C just makes more sense for me for some reason.l
Apologies in advance to all of those who suggested you try using Forth as a method to learn the Propeller better.......
I would not agree that Forth is very simple or a great way to learn the Propeller. It just seems odd to me. I know that quite a few people on the forums like Forth a lot but I am not particularly fond of it. Maybe I'm a bit jaded by other implementations that left a bad impression and hopefully the Propeller versions are better. Writing some small Forth routines seems to work well enough but going back an trying to maintain larger existing Forth programs has been a PITA whenever I have run into it.
I would start with spin and then if you are familiar with C then look at using one of the C compilers for the Propeller. There are many example programs using spin to get you started.
Maybe someday I'll change my stance on Forth but for now I would look at other options....
Forth.. pro and con.
I was the one that suggested it. But seeing as the OP felt more confident with C, I am more than happy to let it go at that. It was never about writing large programs so much as a way to get started quickly on the Propeller.
Comments
PICs come in a huge variety of chips, and each one is a bit different to learn. So each change in chip requires some more study. It is so much easier to just program a Propeller with features in software than to rely on features built into the silicon and having a huge list of special use registers.
I suspect you have a program for it or that the board will allow programing via the USB. But it isn't going to talk to you. .. it will just download and burn the binary. Microchip provides all the software and documentation. Yahoo groups have some active PIC user groups.
It is a whole different world with a very different kind of support experience... for me personally.. to many details that require buying another Pic and learning another Assembly language, unless you buy a rather expensive PICBasic or C for PIC compiler.
Even then, you won't find a lot of users helping you with your PICBasic or C for PIC.... it is proprietary stuff.
Okay... if you want Forth on the Propeller... you may need a refresher course in Forth.
Leo Brodie's Starting Forth is still available online and the best place ever to start.
I created a list of the lexicon that you learn on a chapter by chapter basis, so it is easier to recall.
The Propeller has 3 versions of Forth, Tachyon Forth, PropForth, and pfth. My personal preference for learning is currently pfth as it attempts to conform to ANS Forth, which has published tutorials online... such as 'And so Forth'.
I also use GForth on a Linux machine for study, but it can be gotten for Windows and Apples and has its own world of ANS Forth documents.
CANbus and the MCP2551 and MCP2515 chip set are an old love of mine and work well with the Propeller, but I have no ECU knowledge as I haven't had an automobile for about 25 years. My CANbus knowledge doesn't migrate into the mysterious world of ECUs.
Someone recently here created an application that has the Propeller providing basic automotive info -- engine temperature, RPM, and such on a VGA that used a CANbus interface. SO there is some interest. I am just not the right guy.
Forth, CANbus, and a VGA display might be a winning combo for hacking ECU codes into a custom setup... and is possible to do. You might find that two Propellers.. one for the VGA terminal dumb terminal and another for the CANbus to ECU management may be required to do anything ambitious. VGA tends to hog one Propeller, and Forth would hog the other.
Most of the lexicon in Chapter 3 of Stating Forth does not apply to Forth on the Propeller.. program code is not stored in Blocks, but can be stored in files on and SDcard.
Take a look at what Dave Hein is doing with SpinX on the Propeller. You will need to attach and SDcard interface to the QuickStart to have this enhanced capacity... but it is a very rewarding enhancement.
Since you have the expensive CANbus to ECU interfacing equipment, you might be able to splice in a Propeller to snoop the raw codes. The lack of access to such equipment has been a barrier to most that show an interest in CANbus and ECUs on the Propeller.
Excellent idea Aaron! ...and welcome to the Forums too :-)
-MattG
-MattG
That looks like an experimenter board. A PIC chip with some other hardware, sorta like a quickstart board.
I started with PICs 4 years ago, just as a winter time hobby. I only bought the PICs and made my own boards with bread board. There are lots of good tutorials on the web. I started with a very basic, some say obsolete chip, the
PIC16F84. Surprisingly, the newest most advanced PICs are the least expensive. Usually less than $3. The assembly instruction set for the less advanced PICs is only 35 instructions. The more advanced ones use the same instructions and add about that many more. Most of those are combinations or the ones you wished you had in the basics.
I'm glad I started with PICs and just came to the Propeller as a stepping stone to learning C, then I'm going back to PICs.
SOME SAY CHEVY's, SOME SAY FORDs! It's all in what turns you on
Aaron
Also, if I wanted to write a function for my prop to read 3 analog inputs, speed (freq) and tach (freq), log these to an SD card, does that sound like something I could do or do I need to go shopping for more parts??. I do have an SD shield.
The Propeller 2 will have built in ADC and DAC on every i/o pin, but we are not there yet.
That leads to two choices.
[a] use an external ADC chip, in your case that might be one with 4 ADCs multiplexed that communicated serially (with SPI) or
create Sigma-Delta ADC interfaces using a few small components near the i/o pins.
Personally, I prefer the first option for a quick solution. The Sigma-Delta ADC needs to be built into a soldered board to have any reliability. There are a lot of good ADC chips around and for most things you don't need more than 10 bits of accuracy.
But it really is up to you which approach offers you the most inspiring learning path. The Propeller OBEX has objects that provide for both.
Meanwhile, get the SDcard reading. That shouldn't be too hard. Parallax's SDcard holder has all the pullup resistors properly included, some other ones omit them. The pullup resistors are necessary and need to be included.
I believe Matt did acknowledge that he ONLY got your email address, not enough to mail you something. Look through the above postings by Matt for the most recent.
Please no one send any "test" GPS missles to my address lol
I enjoy Forth because it is interprettd.. so I can actually poke around and verify what is going on in the Propeller in realtime. And it is useful for realtime experimenting. In your case, if you had a CANbus interface tired into an automobile, you could create a Forth word... say 'Blink' on the fly to blink the headlights and you just enter Blink and it does it.
With C, you have to rewrite your code, recompile and load.
The Arduinio have several built-in ADCs. That does make getting analoge readings one-step closer to being done in a development process. But the Arduino won't provide you with a color VGA interface and the Propeller can. There are pro's and con's with each. ADC is certainly an important issue with a lot of projects and pushes a lot of people to preferring and Arduino or even a PIC (some have built-in ADCs).
I have a little CANbus board that has two ADC inputs on it and two logic high/low outputs. If you want to use the Propeller with CANbus, the ADC inputs can be else where. With CANbus, your terminal end can be a Propeller with video and keyboard, and you can have many different microcontrollers on the CANbus... some PICs have both the CANbus interface and multiple ADCs built-in.
Of course, the more variety you use... the more you have to remember about the different products. It gets confusing when you jump from Propeller to PICs to Arduinos, and so on. Some people handle the variety well and enjoy jumping around, others do not.
Even if Forth and C were equivalently easy my feeling is that you are going to find more support among the wider user base of C.
Having said all that I would use a Propeller over a small AVR/Arduino any day. Then the Propeller's Spin language is still a very good way to go. It's easy, you will get lot's of support here and there is a huge library of ready to use objects in the OBEX.
Hello!
Well after a long absence from even considering the Prop for anything I, myself, just got an example program, in this case a demo included with the Prop ones for #27977-RT and that suffix means it survived those characters (all punctuation ones) at Radio Shack, to work.
Do all of you remember the Byte articles written by Steve Ciarcia? He wrote the Circuit Cellar column in the magazine. When the magazine started its slow spiral into nothing he spun it off to become an excellent magazine. Anyway, when he would build an excellent circuit design for something that would be used on of all things his S100 based Z-80 system, he would write the software for it, preliminary software that is, in BASIC. I view the whole idea behind writing programs for the Prop in that entire scheme.
Simple programs first in Spin, more complicated ones in the dialects that are available.
And help is available in all forms.
I first tried to learn Forth back in the 80's and had the same reaction. There are a number of ways in which it zigs where other programming languages zag that I couldn't handle. My recent forays into it have finally paid off and I think I get it now. But I've had decades of programming experience since my first attempts as a teenager.
If you see what I mean:)
I do actually. From my perspective the use case where Forth pays off is creating a serial command language for controlling things. I think Dave Hein would probably call this the scripting use case. For my drawbot I created a word for each letter, these invoke other words like stroke or dash, which in turn invoke forward and rotate. At that point the robot can draw what you type into the terminal window which is kinda neat. I could do the same in C/C++, but I would have to build the parser for the remote commands rather than having them emerge as part of the program.
The other use case where it helps is that the Propeller and Arduino tools don't come with a debugger, so if you want to see what's happening in the program you are forever adding logging statements. Forth sidesteps that issue by being interactive, so you can directly inquire about program state. But this is more of an artifact of a specific environment which goes away on others.
Apologies in advance to all of those who suggested you try using Forth as a method to learn the Propeller better.......
I would not agree that Forth is very simple or a great way to learn the Propeller. It just seems odd to me. I know that quite a few people on the forums like Forth a lot but I am not particularly fond of it. Maybe I'm a bit jaded by other implementations that left a bad impression and hopefully the Propeller versions are better. Writing some small Forth routines seems to work well enough but going back an trying to maintain larger existing Forth programs has been a PITA whenever I have run into it.
I would start with spin and then if you are familiar with C then look at using one of the C compilers for the Propeller. There are many example programs using spin to get you started.
Maybe someday I'll change my stance on Forth but for now I would look at other options....
I was the one that suggested it. But seeing as the OP felt more confident with C, I am more than happy to let it go at that. It was never about writing large programs so much as a way to get started quickly on the Propeller.