I just don't think that it is necessary to view C as a "gateway drug" to pull people into Spin. I think both languages have value and one isn't an "upgrade" to the other.
So then the onus is on Parallax to fully support two mutually disjoint languages, complete with separate libraries? I just don't see the resources being available for that. I think the approach should be, "Welcome to the Propeller! Get started with C if that's what you're comfortable with. But to see the Propeller sizzle and to take advantage of the OBEX, give Spin a spin."
So then the onus is on Parallax to fully support two mutually disjoint languages, complete with separate libraries? I just don't see the resources being available for that. I think the approach should be, "Welcome to the Propeller! Get started with C if that's what you're comfortable with. But to see the Propeller sizzle and to take advantage of the OBEX, give Spin a spin."
-Phil
Parallax didn't produce most of what is in OBEX. It's up to the Propeller community to build up the C/C++ libraries like they did with the Spin ones.
So then the onus is on Parallax to fully support two mutually disjoint languages, complete with separate libraries? I just don't see the resources being available for that. I think the approach should be, "Welcome to the Propeller! Get started with C if that's what you're comfortable with. But to see the Propeller sizzle and to take advantage of the OBEX, give Spin a spin."
-Phil
No, the onus is on us. Sorry, I just had to say that because the word onus just seems so odd.
But truthfully, most of the language support is done by the Prop community. Even before the PropGCC development Parallax hadn't done much with Spin support. There are many bugs filed against the Prop tool that were never fixed. Parallax did support the OpenSpin development, so maybe new Spin features will come from that eventually.
The work on PropGCC was done by consultants and volunteers. I imagine there will be more consulting work done for PropGCC on P2, but there will probably also be more consulting work done on OpenSpin as well. However, much of the work will be done by volunteers.
It's one thing to offer a choice and quite another to be able to say, "Whichever you choose, if you run into trouble, we have the resouces availabe to help and support you." Parallax is not totally community-driven. They're a for-profit company that sells to clients with high expectations. That requires a commitment which is, at its foundation, monetary.
Parallax is not totally community-driven. They're a for-profit company that sells to clients with high expectations. That requires a commitment which is, at its foundation, monetary.
I think you now understand the reason for C support.
I have long since forgotten how many times I have explained to someone that BST is no longer supported.
Maybe I should read the forums more often... BST is no longer supported? BST is the tool that I can download from the Propeller pages, isn't it? No longer supported - really? I missed that completely...
Anyway, I think Parallax should support Spin as well as C for programming the Propeller and I suspect that they will at some point.
Is the implication that Parallax don't support Spin, or don't support C? From a cursory glance at Parallax's web pages it looks a lot like they support both.
I'm confused... (my natural state I think).
I've been a programmer for many years, and I've written Unix OS source in C, so I have a reasonable background with C. I like Spin. I like C too. Why can't I use both? What I don't like about C on the Propeller is that (it seems) to do anything useful I have to play with memory models until I find the right one. Spin is easier. I just put a Propeller chip or two on breadboards with some EEPROM and BST/Spin works - it's doesn't seem to be so easy with C when I don't have a standard board. Maybe I just haven't played enough.
As for BST vs Simple IDE, I use BST just because it works and I see no real need to change. If SimpleIDE offers me enough advantage over BST I'll change, but nothing has prompted me to so far. Should I? I guess if BST isn't supported that'd be motivation to change...
Is the implication that Parallax don't support Spin, or don't support C? From a cursory glance at Parallax's web pages it looks a lot like they support both.
Oops, sorry. This was in the context of a cross-platform IDE. Parallax, of course, actively supports Propeller Tool users programming in Spin under Windows.
I guess if BST isn't supported that'd be motivation to change...
BST was not written by Parallax and the source is not available. Unfortunately, the original author is no longer interested in supporting it and since source is not available no one can take over support. Hence, it is now unsupported. No one wanted this to happen and many people like BST including me. It's an unfortunate situation.
BST was not written by Parallax and the source is not available. Unfortunately, the original author is no longer interested in supporting it and since source is not available no one can take over support. Hence, it is now unsupported. No one wanted this to happen and many people like BST including me. It's an unfortunate situation.
Ah - so BST isn't the Propeller Tool. I was mixing them up... It's too early in the morning here :-)
This sounds nice in principle but I think that what is good for Spin may not be the best approach for other languages. For example, the single main file that includes sub-objects works well with Spin and makes it unnecessary to support a "project manager". This doesn't work as well for C/C++. There will need to be additional features to address requirements of each language. ....
Actually, this already works for C in SimpleIDE. All that is needed is precompiled libraries in a well known place like is being provided with Simple Libraries, and some other massaging for "project" options which can be kept in the registry.
What is lacking is fair use of time and user willingness.
JonnyMac has been wonderfully prompting me to do things with the xBasic IDE. Some things are easy, others are not. I'll probably do some of the easy things and use the name he suggested. As for the complicated stuff, well who knows. I will certainly remove all xmm modes though, especially if it got any C support.
Why isn't SimpleIDE promoted for Spin programming on the Propeller pages?
Back to the original subject of this thread, it seems like SimpleIDE for Spin should be promoted more. I've always used the Spin tool, and never used SIDE for Spin. However, I just tried it out with Spin, and I like it. It does require creating a project file, but that's not a big deal. It would be nice if the default Spin file contained a little more stuff like default _clkmode and _clkfreq values, and maybe a simple "Hello World" program.
I'll probably used SIDE for Spin from now on because it will make it easier for me to switch back-and-forth between C and Spin development. One feature that I really like with SIDE is the ability to write files to an SD card on the target board. I use that feature a lot, and I'd like to see it expanded a bit so that multiple files and directories could be specified.
All interesting debates between between better minds than mine aside, Heater's original question is a very good one.
As a practical matter, the SimpleIDE installer files are simply too big for the Downloads distribution at www.parallax.com, and so are not presented as Downloads options on product pages the way the Propeller Tool is. I agree that we should make it easy for customers (especially potential new Mac-wielding ones) to discover that Propeller chips and boards can be programmed in Spin and C with SimpleIDE on Windows or Mac. I will work out a solution with our web team. (Of course, for the PE Kit Labs the book is written specifically for the Propeller Tool, so that will need some additional consideration....Hmm.)
I like to use Pololu Wixels to wirelessly program the Propeller chip. I've found that when a Spin program gets too large the Propeller tool chokes on it. While BST doesn't have this limitation, neither does SimpleIDE. So I used the SimpleIDE to compile Spin as well as C. It seems to work OK for me.
I like to use Pololu Wixels to wirelessly program the Propeller chip. I've found that when a Spin program gets too large the Propeller tool chokes on it. While BST doesn't have this limitation, neither does SimpleIDE. So I used the SimpleIDE to compile Spin as well as C. It seems to work OK for me.
The Pololu Wixel modules look interesting. Did you write code for them to implement Chip's serial loader protocol?
I tried an earlier version of SimpleIDE but haven't gone back. I will not even consider going to SimpleIDE until it supports Block Group Indicators. They are, in my opinion, essential for a language that uses indention to specify scope. If Block Group Indicators have been added to SimpleIDE, I missed it on the forum. Right now I am staying with Spin because I know it. I also know C. But C doesn't do anything. I don't know the Prop specific C libraries and idioms.
The Pololu Wixel modules look interesting. Did you write code for them to implement Chip's serial loader protocol?
No, Pololu created a wireless serial port app which if you configure properly just works. Since the Wixel is a 3.3 volt device the only additional part you need is a 0.1 uF capacitor. Here's the discussion thread where I first tried it and a few other people reproduced my success:
Correction: I agree that we should make it easy for customers to discover that Propeller chips and boards can be programmed in Spin and C with SimpleIDE on Windows, Mac, and Linux. Thanks Steve!
I did not mean to start a language war here, or an editor war.
I only posed a simple question, basically: "Why not make life easier for users of non-legacy operating systems like Mac and Linux users?"
The tools are there, they work, don't hide it.
But whilst we are in fighting mood:
@r.daneel,
No longer supported - really?
Sadly this is true. BST is a closed source program that nobody can support except the author. The author of BST has been "off the air" for a long time". We have to assume BST is dead.
@Steph Lindsay.
Thank God, somebody who understands!
...installer files are simply too big for the Downloads distribution...
I'm sure this is not such a big hurdle.
@mindrobots,
Linux is circling the airport waiting for clearance to land.....or until fuel runs out!
You are totally out of touch with the modern world.
@John Abshier.
I will not even consider going to SimpleIDE until it supports Block Group Indicators. They are, in my opinion, essential for a language that uses indention to specify scope.
There are millions of Python programmers out there that get along just fine without such crutches.
There is nothing wrong with propgcc. Professional users will be very happy with it and use it with Eclipse or vim or emacs or whatever they like.
Actually I think as long as propgcc compiles code for the Propeller and supports C standard library things it is done. Everything else belongs in supporting libraries.
All I wanted was some links on the Propeller pages.
@mindrobots,
Linux is circling the airport waiting for clearance to land.....or until fuel runs out!
You are totally out of touch with the modern world.
Am not!!!
Only when taken out of context - this was in reply to a question about SimpleIDE only being for Windows and Mac. Linux had been stalled for a long time. It's available now but it appears it wasn't announced!
I can Happily put the Linux version of of SimplyIDE on my 3 out of touch Linux system tonight!! :thumb: Now I can play Propeller no mater which computer I happen to be using!!
.....and of course, I can always use Forth, the Original IDE!!
I personally will not use SimpleIDE for Spin until, at a minimum, it auto-indents to the same level as the previous line. Minimum. Really. For anything more complex than a single repeat loop, I spent more time typing in spaces or tabs than actually coding. If Spin didn't rely on indentation for program correctness I would probably even overlook this. Did I just miss a checkbox on the IDE somewhere?
Next up, I really like the IDE displaying the number of bytes for a given subroutine...it lets me do some basic Spin optimization without being a Spin bytecode guru. This isn't even really needed...just very very nice.
Comments
-Phil
Sandy
Good advice!
But truthfully, most of the language support is done by the Prop community. Even before the PropGCC development Parallax hadn't done much with Spin support. There are many bugs filed against the Prop tool that were never fixed. Parallax did support the OpenSpin development, so maybe new Spin features will come from that eventually.
The work on PropGCC was done by consultants and volunteers. I imagine there will be more consulting work done for PropGCC on P2, but there will probably also be more consulting work done on OpenSpin as well. However, much of the work will be done by volunteers.
THE ONUS IS ON US.
-Phil
Maybe I should read the forums more often... BST is no longer supported? BST is the tool that I can download from the Propeller pages, isn't it? No longer supported - really? I missed that completely...
Is the implication that Parallax don't support Spin, or don't support C? From a cursory glance at Parallax's web pages it looks a lot like they support both.
I'm confused... (my natural state I think).
I've been a programmer for many years, and I've written Unix OS source in C, so I have a reasonable background with C. I like Spin. I like C too. Why can't I use both? What I don't like about C on the Propeller is that (it seems) to do anything useful I have to play with memory models until I find the right one. Spin is easier. I just put a Propeller chip or two on breadboards with some EEPROM and BST/Spin works - it's doesn't seem to be so easy with C when I don't have a standard board. Maybe I just haven't played enough.
As for BST vs Simple IDE, I use BST just because it works and I see no real need to change. If SimpleIDE offers me enough advantage over BST I'll change, but nothing has prompted me to so far. Should I? I guess if BST isn't supported that'd be motivation to change...
Ah - so BST isn't the Propeller Tool. I was mixing them up... It's too early in the morning here :-)
What is lacking is fair use of time and user willingness.
JonnyMac has been wonderfully prompting me to do things with the xBasic IDE. Some things are easy, others are not. I'll probably do some of the easy things and use the name he suggested. As for the complicated stuff, well who knows. I will certainly remove all xmm modes though, especially if it got any C support.
I'll probably used SIDE for Spin from now on because it will make it easier for me to switch back-and-forth between C and Spin development. One feature that I really like with SIDE is the ability to write files to an SD card on the target board. I use that feature a lot, and I'd like to see it expanded a bit so that multiple files and directories could be specified.
As a practical matter, the SimpleIDE installer files are simply too big for the Downloads distribution at www.parallax.com, and so are not presented as Downloads options on product pages the way the Propeller Tool is. I agree that we should make it easy for customers (especially potential new Mac-wielding ones) to discover that Propeller chips and boards can be programmed in Spin and C with SimpleIDE on Windows or Mac. I will work out a solution with our web team. (Of course, for the PE Kit Labs the book is written specifically for the Propeller Tool, so that will need some additional consideration....Hmm.)
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Heater!
-Steph
Ray
Explain?
Linux is circling the airport waiting for clearance to land.....or until fuel runs out! :frown:
Yup! Somebody did!!
Thanks, Steve, Now i have somehting to do tonight!!
John Abshier
No, Pololu created a wireless serial port app which if you configure properly just works. Since the Wixel is a 3.3 volt device the only additional part you need is a 0.1 uF capacitor. Here's the discussion thread where I first tried it and a few other people reproduced my success:
http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php/139534-Wireless-Programming-of-a-Propeller-chip-(video)
The Wixels are a cheap way to add wireless remote programming and the range is all around my house so they work for me.
Correction: I agree that we should make it easy for customers to discover that Propeller chips and boards can be programmed in Spin and C with SimpleIDE on Windows, Mac, and Linux. Thanks Steve!
I mean good frikken grief!
I did not mean to start a language war here, or an editor war.
I only posed a simple question, basically: "Why not make life easier for users of non-legacy operating systems like Mac and Linux users?"
The tools are there, they work, don't hide it.
But whilst we are in fighting mood:
@r.daneel, Sadly this is true. BST is a closed source program that nobody can support except the author. The author of BST has been "off the air" for a long time". We have to assume BST is dead.
@Steph Lindsay.
Thank God, somebody who understands! I'm sure this is not such a big hurdle.
@mindrobots, You are totally out of touch with the modern world.
@John Abshier. There are millions of Python programmers out there that get along just fine without such crutches.
There is nothing wrong with propgcc. Professional users will be very happy with it and use it with Eclipse or vim or emacs or whatever they like.
Actually I think as long as propgcc compiles code for the Propeller and supports C standard library things it is done. Everything else belongs in supporting libraries.
All I wanted was some links on the Propeller pages.
Am not!!!
Only when taken out of context - this was in reply to a question about SimpleIDE only being for Windows and Mac. Linux had been stalled for a long time. It's available now but it appears it wasn't announced!
I can Happily put the Linux version of of SimplyIDE on my 3 out of touch Linux system tonight!! :thumb: Now I can play Propeller no mater which computer I happen to be using!!
.....and of course, I can always use Forth, the Original IDE!!
OK. lets get picky here.
Linux is not an operating system. It's a kernel that you might like to build an OS on top of.
As such I don't expect and don't need SimpleIDE packages for operating systems like Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Suse, etc etc.
No, just checkout the source code. Issue the one line build command and boom, there you are. It works.
Good grief, it's easier than installing the latest Java exploit, err..I mean update, on Windows.
Good Lord!!
Ok, the officially released and sanctioned release of a SimpleIDE package for any Linux distribution has been on hold for quite some time.
That is the thing about the Unix world.
Never mind trying to support installation packages for Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Slack, Suse, etc etc.
That's before we get onto the BSDs oh, and what about the Raspberry Pi guys?...
Who cares? Just deliver the source with sensible build instructions, like "make", "make install", done.
OS/distribution maintainers can make OS specific packages if they like.
Next up, I really like the IDE displaying the number of bytes for a given subroutine...it lets me do some basic Spin optimization without being a Spin bytecode guru. This isn't even really needed...just very very nice.
thanks,
Jonathan