I started working with Parallax processors a few years ago using the Stamp. I recall buying the development kit for over $100 at Radio Shack. After working with it for a few months I order a couple of BS2 modules at $65 each. However, on the same day I ordered the Stamps I looked into the SX and realized I could get more capability at a much lower price. So I cancelled my BS2 order and ordered a few SX chips along with the development board and the SX programming adapter for much less than the cost of the two BS2 modules.
I loved working with the SX. It ran faster than PIC chips, supported interrupts and had more capability than the Stamp at a much lower price. It supported a language called SX/B that was very similar to the BS2 programming language. I'm not sure if Bean developed the language first and then presented it to Parallax, or if he was contracted by Parallax to develop it. But SX/B made it easy to transition from the Stamp to the SX. I ended up programming the SX mostly in assembly, and used it on a few projects to control cameras in rockets and kites for aerial photography. I also used it for active stabilization in a rocket with a gimbaled motor mount. I even used it once to generate a low-frequency RF signal to find buried wires in my lawn sprinkler system.
Then the Propeller came along. I think it missed the mark by introducing yet another proprietary language called Spin. I think the Propeller would have been more widely accepted if a language more similar to the Basic stamp language and SX/B was used instead. Prop/B could have included the extensions to support the new features offered by the Prop. Bean's PropBASIC is very similar to what Prop/B should have been.
I think Spin hindered the acceptance of the Propeller. In my view it is not really a beginner's language. It lacks the useful features that are included in other HLLs that protect the beginner from making mistakes. It's a proprietary language that poses a barrier for beginners and experience programmers to have to learn. This left an opening for the Arduino to be developed using Wiring for it's programming language. The Arduino programming language shields the beginner from the complexities of the system, while still letting experience programmers do more powerful things since it uses C++ under the covers.
I think the Prop could do well in the Arduino market if it were promoted that way. Unfortunately, the P1 has been frozen in time for a few years, and it's falling behind the AVR in capabilities. P2 could be a real contender in this market if it ever sees the light of day.
I think the pricing aspect on the Wiki page is revisionist. If the students were mainly objecting to the price, there were plenty of Stamp-compatibles available at the time, including Picaxe. Since Picaxe comes from a UK company, importing them to Italy would have been cheaper, too.
I'm sure a lower price was a welcome side-effect, but there were already plenty of alternatives if cost were the main issue. (Too, the very low cost of current Chinese imports didn't exist in 2005, so that's rather irrelevent.)
If you read the original article that the paragraph cites you see the price was just one concern and even that was minimalized ("bit too expensive"). A more critical issue is that *designers* -- the students Banzi was teaching -- use Macs, and there was no Stamp IDE for the Mac at the time. Companies can stumble when they forget about a core group of key users, in this case university students who have always preferred Macs. Parallax did this, but quickly learned, and created a tokenizer for the Mac. And they made sure Prop C supports the Mac.
With many students now using pads instead of desktops or laptops, the next challenge for everyone -- including Arduino -- is porting their code to iOS. No one can rest on their laurels for long. Even the Arduino can find themselves marginalized by someone else if they don't adapt to the users.
Arduino's path is a bit longer, as iOS doesn't natively support Java -- at least, it hasn't. There's always RoboVM and other "patches" for Java under iOS, but those are layers of potential complexity.
The Arduino will always be good for fooling around with modules and for shopping for the latest add on; but I come to Parallax for knowledge.
For the retailer, Arduino may be a bigger seller as there is more to load up the customer with. But I think people are getting tired of being loaded up with things they don't really use. I appreciate owning something that keeps giving me more insights. Maybe I am just frugal. I certainly wasn't always that way and started out the opposite.
I just figure knowledge is power, collecting hardware is clutter.
With Arduino, the clutter might build faster as you jump through all the various boards = UNO, DUE, Leonardo, Tre, and such.
Recently at my local electronics shop, I saw an Arduino box with one each of all the Arduino add-on boards for about $150 USD. Very interesting, but no documents and no mention of a web site to get info. What's that about? I suspect Chinese clones being dumped on the market by producers that have no intention of supporting their own product -- just hoping the Arduino 'community' will take up the cause.
Paradoxically, all the add-on will work with a Propeller with a bit of study and effort. So the availability of these may sell a few Propellers as well.
We can all get distracted by too many choices and to much detail. And so....
The biggest learning asset of the Propeller is that it is JUST ONE CHIP, and not a collection of variations to manage. Okay, soon to be two chips. But certainly not all the AVR variations that require an large library of specific C code for the many chips.
Throwing too many choices at a novice is just a way to scare them off and make them feel stupid.
I do admit that Spin was difficult for me to. But it is years later and people are able to help new users with what it is all about. I also had an adversion of object oriented coding that I had to overcome. But the most awkward part was i/o code requiring a lot of new 32 pins at the same time code.
I am still learning my way around Spin. It is also why I am a heavy fan of Forth on the Propeller as a means of quick fun code, and a means to learning what PASM is really all about. Forth on the Propeller works extremely well as a bridge to PASM for me personally. I don't know why, but it does.
I have very fond memories of the SX and Gunther's book. Not having that around was a disappointment, but Parallax had good reasons to EOL the support.
Electronics manufacturing is certainly like running with the bulls... you get bumped around a lot and trampled at times by the crowd. But then you have the experience and satisfaction of having been there and having done it.
Then the Propeller came along. I think it missed the mark by introducing yet another proprietary language called Spin. I think the Propeller would have been more widely accepted if a language more similar to the Basic stamp language and SX/B was used instead. Prop/B could have included the extensions to support the new features offered by the Prop. Bean's PropBASIC is very similar to what Prop/B should have been.
I think the Prop could do well in the Arduino market if it were promoted that way. Unfortunately, the P1 has been frozen in time for a few years, and it's falling behind the AVR in capabilities. P2 could be a real contender in this market if it ever sees the light of day.
I'm surprised more people have not spoken up against Spin in this forum. Obviously Parallax has gotten the message and poured resources into C. I looked up Parallax products at Adafruit.com and the Propeller Activity Board comes up (link below). After the pictures, the very first paragraph says "Introducing the Propeller Activity Board! Do more with eight cores. Harnessing the power of the 8-core Propeller microcontroller is now easier than ever before! With built-in sockets and pre-written C libraries, Parallax provides the resources for you to bring your project from idea to reality." Curious it makes no mention of COGS or Spin. @Hein: Promotion for P-2 is key.
@GordonMcComb: The Boe Bot was the first Parallax product I purchased. It happened by chance at Fry's when I happened to walk the kits aisle. The little Bot caught my eye. What I found more intriguing was the BASIC-like code on the side. I was shocked it could be programmed in Basic. This was much better than Big Trac. I had fun with the Boe Bot, but the $59 price for the BS2 was a problem after I learned about the PicAxe price and built-in ADCs - I was done with Parallax. Eventually I needed floating point math, so I turned to ZBasic chips (ZX-40). The features, visual basic language, the ability to link C-code, and the excellent documentation won me over. Then I joined the Arduino band-wagon with the 32-bit Due release. With all the features I want, the forum, with a price nearly $10 cheaper than a BS2, it was a no-brainer. That said, I'm not married to Arduino or any other vendor. I'm actually more interested in the Propeller-2 (with GCC) than the Arduino Tre. The features are known more or less, so it'll boil down to price. Arguably, one of the reasons why R-Pi is so popular is because of price. So I hope Parallax gets it right.
I'm surprised more people have not spoken up against Spin in this forum.
You need to research more threads. There's been plenty of debate regarding Spin. Parallax has for some time known that Spin is not what many schools want to use for teaching kids programming, so they've invested heavily in C development, including entirely new educational courseware that concentrate only on C. The ActivityBoard is an enabler of that courseware. That doesn't mean they have to remove Spin as an option. There are many people that like the language.
Arguably, one of the reasons why R-Pi is so popular is because of price. So I hope Parallax gets it right.
Cheap will always attract attention, but the Rapsberry Pi platform is not a business model anyone but the Chinese can emulate, even when not considering components used that might be subsidized by their makers (in the interest of gaining market share). The RPi foundation is a non-profit charity. You can't compare their model with a for profit business like Parallax.
I have never found a single MCU or SBC that had all the features I needed for all the types of projects I do. I stopped looking for the "perfect" board years ago. I just pick the one closest to the feature set I need. Sometimes I can still get by with a $1.49 AVR.
I ended up programming the SX mostly in assembly,...
I think Spin hindered the acceptance of the Propeller....
I do hope you see the contradiction here.
...left an opening for the Arduino to be developed using Wiring for it's programming language.
There is no such language as "Wiring". The Arduinos are programmed in C++.
@Gordon
I think the pricing aspect on the Wiki page is revisionist....
I think this is missing the point. The big deal was that the Arduino design was "open source". As was the gcc compiler that it used and the IDE they put on top. Anybody could run with it. And they did.
...the next challenge for everyone -- including Arduino -- is porting their code to iOS.
WTF?. All the Arduino tools are Free and Open Source software. If anyone want's it to work in the Apple walled garden that is not a technical problem. Only an artificial commercial barrier.
Ken Gracey,
On our way!
Well, you know how sick I feel about that, let's not go there.
All the world and his dog knows that BASIC is not the way to go. Chip. bless him, devised Spin for the Propeller. It's simple, it's brilliant. What's to complain about?
Again, very well put. Lots of Wozniaks in this thread, not enough Steve Jobs like @Heater. I think you have to capture the prospective customer at the Title, like a New York Times headline, or a movie trailer. For example: "Propeller2 - Multi-Core with 8 32-bit Processors" grabs the Maker's attention. Aside from Parallax customers, COG is not recognized by the broader market, which I presume is the target.
You might as well state "Propeller 1 - Multi-Core with 8 32 bit Processors" as that is what already exists.
BTW: The Propeller 1 (and 2) do support C. You can even find a lot of educational material in (http://learn.parallax.com/)
I'll grant you that despite all the excellent tutorials and step-by-step educational solutions provided by Parallax there still are IMHO two adoption difficulties:
1 - Learning TRUE multi-processing concepts. It's not trivial and it's a steep learning curve specially for beginners
2 - SW peripherals are great & flexible, but again for the beginner (and the experienced) there are too many options
Maybe we should compile a "Transitioner's guide" with down to earth plug & play suggested SW peripherals for the commonly HW found devices, kind of a cookbook for the Propeller.
@Tryit
The BoeBot got all that started? Why not cut a little slack, rather than being so hard on your 'first kiss'?
The fact that your next move was to PicAxe was obviously an economy move.
Can you tell use why you so consistently need ADC? Sensors, battery monitoring, or what?
I like ZBasic as well, but that hasn't driven me to need Arduinos.
One success story follows another. Try not to blame the guy that came first of imaginary abuses of the customer. There may come a day when Arduino will be accused of the same thing.
And I think we all have heard long winded debates about the pros and cons of Spin and OBEX while you were away and not participating. It becomes tedious to hear it again when what we all would really like is a Propeller 2 to play with. But Parallax doesn't have corporate and uniiversity's resources behind the developent of the chip. It is mostly just Chip Gracey grinding away at doing the best he can 24/7. We feel very loyal as a real person is struggling to achieve something new and useful, not a bevy of scholars and engineers pumping out product for industry that funds their work with deep pockets.
ZBasic had its failures and drama. It appears to be a fork of BasicX. Ask Don Kitzner why he calls his company Elba Corp. And BasicX did suffer with flawed AVR product from the early days. There is a lot of history that neither of us know about who really was struggling and why.
The "Arduino" is an Open Source design. The schematic, the PCB art work, the IDE, the compiler, the software libraries That is the whole point. Anyone can make one.
It just happens to use a micro-controller made by ATMEL. Which of course is a closed as closed can be. None of this is ATMEL's fault. It's just what happened with their device.
Sadly Parallax did not catch on to this "Open Source" idea until quite recently.
Sadly Parallax did not catch on to this "Open Source" idea until quite recently.
The Propeller OBEX has been open source from Day One. What do you mean recently? If you mean IDEs and languages, there was a huge surge of language developers that wanted proprietary control of their pride and joy. Some wanted Parallax to sell there languages for the Propeller, some wanted Parallax to buy their language support services forever, and some did provide open source.
So Parallax was pretty much left to waiting to see what direction to go rather than just throw money at every language that claimed to be best. After all, the bulk of R&D cash has been going into the Propeller2. And there is the ever present payroll and overhead that must be met.
I repeat, Parallax is a small business, 50 or so employees. At least they have been fortunate to get some very creative people that could go elsewhere for a bigger paycheck, but enjoy the creative freedom.
Here is proof that Arduino code can run on a Propeller.
You need to research more threads. There's been plenty of debate regarding Spin. Parallax has for some time known that Spin is not what many schools want to use for teaching kids programming, so they've invested heavily in C development, including entirely new educational courseware that concentrate only on C. The ActivityBoard is an enabler of that courseware. That doesn't mean they have to remove Spin as an option. There are many people that like the language.
Cheap will always attract attention, but the Rapsberry Pi platform is not a business model anyone but the Chinese can emulate, even when not considering components used that might be subsidized by their makers (in the interest of gaining market share). The RPi foundation is a non-profit charity. You can't compare their model with a for profit business like Parallax.
I have never found a single MCU or SBC that had all the features I needed for all the types of projects I do. I stopped looking for the "perfect" board years ago. I just pick the one closest to the feature set I need. Sometimes I can still get by with a $1.49 AVR.
LOL..yes cheap will always catch attention...especially of management looking to maximize bonuese...err...profits.
I for one have spent many man years educating management..who knows better...that cheap is almost never the best engineering solution for a new product.
I ended up programming the SX mostly in assembly,...
I think Spin hindered the acceptance of the Propeller....
I do hope you see the contradiction here.
There's no contradiction here -- only quotes taken out of context. The first statement refers to how I program. The second statement refers to a proprietary HLL, which has kept people away from using the Prop.
...left an opening for the Arduino to be developed using Wiring for it's programming language.
There is no such language as "Wiring". The Arduinos are programmed in C++.
Now you're nit-picking. However you define Wiring, it's very successful. It's hard to argue against success.
EDIT: To be honest, I think the only reason I play with the Prop is because of the challenge of programming the thing. And now with the P2 debacle I almost think it's time to quit messing around with the Prop and start tinkering with the Arduino.
I've been using the BS2 for a few years and now I am moving to the Propeller. It's amazing what it can do using Spin, which resembles PBASIC.
I always found C to be awkward and abstract. For someone who has used the BS2, get an Activity Board for $50 and don't bother with the Arduino.
To be honest, I think the only reason I play with the Prop is because of the challenge of programming the thing. And now with the P2 debacle I almost think it's time to quit messing around with the Prop and start tinkering with the Arduino.
Interesting. What "P2 debacle" is referred to here?
Also, I'm still confused with the P2 flash RAM for programs. The specs say "Non-volatile application and data storage via external SPI EEPROM or SD card". Does the mean no onboard flash for program space? If so, this is a problem.
The Propeller OBEX has been open source from Day One. What do you mean recently?
True. And very excellent it is too.
What I meant was that when I discovered the Propeller Spin programming could only be done with the Prop Tool. Which is still closed source and Windows only. That was enough to make me want to skip the whole idea.
Luckily I soon found Cliff Biffle's PASM assembler. Even created my own simple Pascal like language for the Propeller using that assembler for code generation. But then came the cross-platform BST and HomeSpun tools and life was good.
Serious open source tools did not come until, propgcc, openspin and SimpleIDE.
I do believe this lack of opensource and cross platform tools put off a lot of developers who ended up going with Arduino instead.
Yes, Arduino code can run on a Prop. Thanks to the development of propgcc.
Perhaps I read too much into your post. I think we are in agreement that Spin has been a hinderence to Propeller adoption.
Given how weird the Propeller chip is and then throw in a weird, closed source language on top with non-cross platform tools and it starts to be amazing that any Propellers were ever sold.
I'm not sure if Spin itself, the language, is the big hindrance or the fact that it was a closed source and non-cross platform deal at the time.
Still it could not have been any other way. C does not fly well on the Propeller, in fact C did not fly at all until Bill Henning conceived the LMM approach.
Having said that I think Spin is a great language for beginners, as is the ultra simple to use Prop Tool. Taken as whole Propeller and Spin are wonderfully integrated.
Is this a Problem? Not really. The EEPROM used by the Propeller is tiny and very cheap. As will be the P2's SPI device.
I see, program storage will be handled by external EEPROM integrated on the P2 board.
As a potential customer, browsing through Adafruit and Sparkfun, I'd like to see an intro that succinctly emphasizes the uniqueness of the multi-processor and describes the advantages in language the broader market can understand quickly. Unfamiliar terms like COGS, spin etc. are unmoving. Hyperlinks to specific Parallax sites can elaborate further. To really capture the imagination, showoff cool P2 example projects (e.g., 3D Printer, Drone, etc.).
Here's a succinct list of specs that attract my attention:
Propeller-2 Module
32-bit Multi-Processor (8 Core) Module
HD 1080p Video
Programmable in GCC
200 Mhz Clock Speed
126 KB RAM and 2KB per Processor
TBD KB RAM for Program Storage
92 I/O Pinds
Up to 92 ADC (13-bit Resolution)
USART, PWM, I2C, SPI done in Software enabling numerous peripherals beyond traditional hardware approach.
I have always imagined that 40 dollars would be a price for a PII module. Especially if it comes with the SDRAM. XTAL, ROM etc etc.
Heck a Prop Plugs costs more than half that around here.
I agree with tryit that the Propeller does not immediately catch peoples attention with all the talk of COG, HUB, Spin etc that have no meaning to regular MCU users.
In fact years ago I nearly skipped over the Prop as it did not show up in the huge array of devices offered by our local distributor. They had done the typical thing of allowing one to search for device based on RAM, ROM. MIPs. etc etc. Seems they could not find any category for the Prop. It was not even in the micro-controller section of their catalogue.
This future price nonsense is simply nonsense and speculation. Just recently, Chip Gracy mentioned the possibility of producing the Propeller2 chip at $12USD retail.
But the truth is that when you have a device that is so small and has so much i/o, it becomes more imperative that the product be sold attached to a motherboard of some sort. And since, the Propeller is unlike the BS2 in that it doesn't need to be produced in one location to protect the intellectual property rights, the motherboard can be made in China or anywhere and by anybody that has a competitive solution.
In other words, Parallax would be quite happy to sell chips in bulk and have other prosper. I have no idea who is setting the Arduino Tre price, but that is likely the 'motherboard developer' and not the chip manufacturer.
Historically, all chip manufacturers do product exemplar motherboards to help launch new devices. But these are just about to be the least competitive in the marketplace. I purchased my first Propeller Demo boards for over $100 USD and they did demonstrate; but were never optimal for use. And now, Parallax has the Propeller Project Board for about $25 is really appropriate for a hobbyist to build on.
@Tryit
Are you going to just debate on and on, or are you will to try a Propeller 1 for personal use? I can't see how we can really present all the points and features that are really available, you have to use it to discover what it does.
And trying to nail down the Propeller 2 for comparison with the Tre is a fools errand. They will never be close to being the same -- you might as well compare a toaster to a trash compactor.
BTW, Heater is a Raspbery Pi loyalist under deep cover. It is no wonder the two of you get along.
@Tryit
You make no mention of the Propeller's powerful i/o arbitration (versus the AVR rather conflicted i/o dedication to particulars)
Heater is a Raspbery Pi loyalist under deep cover.
Ha ha, not such a deep cover. I will promote the Pi where it's appropriate. Which is mostly for the purposes it was designed for not as a replacement for a PC at one end of the Spectrum or a Propeller at the other end.
Actually I'm also something of a deserter. We use a bunch of different ARM boards. Each selected to fit it's role best. I'm looking forward to getting a more modern ARM board with SATA interfaces etc, like a Cubie Truck. Just to see how it flies. None of these are comparable to Propeller, they are very different animals.
Yeah, I suspect that Cubieboard will always come out on top as a better overall value when compared with the Raspberry Pi... smallness and price can't always win out.
I have a Cubieboard ONE, but the CubieTruck is really a better value and 2nd and 3rd editions have the benefit of input from your customers about what the 1st didn't quite achieve.
Recently I picked up an IDE to SATA converter for harddisks. I have yet to get the Cubieboard running with a Sata harddisk, but if the disk is already formated; it is a very normal proceedure for getting it mounted. You have to identify a 'super block' that indicates what file format to expect and such. You can use NTFS, but it is really an awkward choice for a Linux system. If would be likely best to use EXT3. But if you want, you can partition and have both NTFS and EXT3 in different partitions.
Regardless, the hard disk will not be the Boot disk for the Cubieboard. The OS boot image resides on the the SDcard, and there is yet another level below that (similar to a BIOS?) that will boot the SDcard after a choice of OSes (Android or Linux) are selected.
Frankly, for most of my stuff, it is just easier to use a Linux Desktop. The Arduino Tre is going to have to struggle against the community of Raspberry Pi users and Cubbieboard users.
I am not surprised you like the Cubieboard as it is all ARM (which with developed out of Cambridge) and actually the Cubieboard may be closer to producing revenue for the U.K. as the Pi is a Broadcom version (ARM licensed to a US company).
These days, ARM is going into chips completely for servers. It is a big deal. Having a market of 50,000,000 chips sold means that it is giving Intel via AMD a big challenge -- extremely low power and tiny footprint.
But I still contend this is not a direct competitor of Parallax as you have to learn a lot broader curriculum to master these. The Propeller is about a narrower, but ever important topic of learning -- getting the most out of a CPU.
@Heater
So I guess I should have said you are a deep cover ARM loyalist. BTW, your Raspberry Pi Founder resigned from the Board and went to work for Broadcom. Industry rewards any salesman that can move 2,000,000 proscessors within one FYI.
Are you talking about one of the Raspberry Pi Foundation founders Eben Upton?
As far as I know he has not resigned from anything and has been working for Broadcom ever since I heard of a Raspberry Pi.
Although he is no longer a trustee of the foundation.
He is by no means employed as a "salesman" by anyone.
Yep, industry does sometime reward really clever guys. Sounds good to me.
Comments
I loved working with the SX. It ran faster than PIC chips, supported interrupts and had more capability than the Stamp at a much lower price. It supported a language called SX/B that was very similar to the BS2 programming language. I'm not sure if Bean developed the language first and then presented it to Parallax, or if he was contracted by Parallax to develop it. But SX/B made it easy to transition from the Stamp to the SX. I ended up programming the SX mostly in assembly, and used it on a few projects to control cameras in rockets and kites for aerial photography. I also used it for active stabilization in a rocket with a gimbaled motor mount. I even used it once to generate a low-frequency RF signal to find buried wires in my lawn sprinkler system.
Then the Propeller came along. I think it missed the mark by introducing yet another proprietary language called Spin. I think the Propeller would have been more widely accepted if a language more similar to the Basic stamp language and SX/B was used instead. Prop/B could have included the extensions to support the new features offered by the Prop. Bean's PropBASIC is very similar to what Prop/B should have been.
I think Spin hindered the acceptance of the Propeller. In my view it is not really a beginner's language. It lacks the useful features that are included in other HLLs that protect the beginner from making mistakes. It's a proprietary language that poses a barrier for beginners and experience programmers to have to learn. This left an opening for the Arduino to be developed using Wiring for it's programming language. The Arduino programming language shields the beginner from the complexities of the system, while still letting experience programmers do more powerful things since it uses C++ under the covers.
I think the Prop could do well in the Arduino market if it were promoted that way. Unfortunately, the P1 has been frozen in time for a few years, and it's falling behind the AVR in capabilities. P2 could be a real contender in this market if it ever sees the light of day.
I'm sure a lower price was a welcome side-effect, but there were already plenty of alternatives if cost were the main issue. (Too, the very low cost of current Chinese imports didn't exist in 2005, so that's rather irrelevent.)
If you read the original article that the paragraph cites you see the price was just one concern and even that was minimalized ("bit too expensive"). A more critical issue is that *designers* -- the students Banzi was teaching -- use Macs, and there was no Stamp IDE for the Mac at the time. Companies can stumble when they forget about a core group of key users, in this case university students who have always preferred Macs. Parallax did this, but quickly learned, and created a tokenizer for the Mac. And they made sure Prop C supports the Mac.
With many students now using pads instead of desktops or laptops, the next challenge for everyone -- including Arduino -- is porting their code to iOS. No one can rest on their laurels for long. Even the Arduino can find themselves marginalized by someone else if they don't adapt to the users.
On our way!
Ken Gracey
I knew it would!
Arduino's path is a bit longer, as iOS doesn't natively support Java -- at least, it hasn't. There's always RoboVM and other "patches" for Java under iOS, but those are layers of potential complexity.
For the retailer, Arduino may be a bigger seller as there is more to load up the customer with. But I think people are getting tired of being loaded up with things they don't really use. I appreciate owning something that keeps giving me more insights. Maybe I am just frugal. I certainly wasn't always that way and started out the opposite.
I just figure knowledge is power, collecting hardware is clutter.
With Arduino, the clutter might build faster as you jump through all the various boards = UNO, DUE, Leonardo, Tre, and such.
Recently at my local electronics shop, I saw an Arduino box with one each of all the Arduino add-on boards for about $150 USD. Very interesting, but no documents and no mention of a web site to get info. What's that about? I suspect Chinese clones being dumped on the market by producers that have no intention of supporting their own product -- just hoping the Arduino 'community' will take up the cause.
Paradoxically, all the add-on will work with a Propeller with a bit of study and effort. So the availability of these may sell a few Propellers as well.
We can all get distracted by too many choices and to much detail. And so....
The biggest learning asset of the Propeller is that it is JUST ONE CHIP, and not a collection of variations to manage. Okay, soon to be two chips. But certainly not all the AVR variations that require an large library of specific C code for the many chips.
Throwing too many choices at a novice is just a way to scare them off and make them feel stupid.
I do admit that Spin was difficult for me to. But it is years later and people are able to help new users with what it is all about. I also had an adversion of object oriented coding that I had to overcome. But the most awkward part was i/o code requiring a lot of new 32 pins at the same time code.
I am still learning my way around Spin. It is also why I am a heavy fan of Forth on the Propeller as a means of quick fun code, and a means to learning what PASM is really all about. Forth on the Propeller works extremely well as a bridge to PASM for me personally. I don't know why, but it does.
I have very fond memories of the SX and Gunther's book. Not having that around was a disappointment, but Parallax had good reasons to EOL the support.
Electronics manufacturing is certainly like running with the bulls... you get bumped around a lot and trampled at times by the crowd. But then you have the experience and satisfaction of having been there and having done it.
I'll stop... I am getting too poetic.
I'm surprised more people have not spoken up against Spin in this forum. Obviously Parallax has gotten the message and poured resources into C. I looked up Parallax products at Adafruit.com and the Propeller Activity Board comes up (link below). After the pictures, the very first paragraph says "Introducing the Propeller Activity Board! Do more with eight cores. Harnessing the power of the 8-core Propeller microcontroller is now easier than ever before! With built-in sockets and pre-written C libraries, Parallax provides the resources for you to bring your project from idea to reality." Curious it makes no mention of COGS or Spin. @Hein: Promotion for P-2 is key.
http://www.adafruit.com/products/1371
@GordonMcComb: The Boe Bot was the first Parallax product I purchased. It happened by chance at Fry's when I happened to walk the kits aisle. The little Bot caught my eye. What I found more intriguing was the BASIC-like code on the side. I was shocked it could be programmed in Basic. This was much better than Big Trac. I had fun with the Boe Bot, but the $59 price for the BS2 was a problem after I learned about the PicAxe price and built-in ADCs - I was done with Parallax. Eventually I needed floating point math, so I turned to ZBasic chips (ZX-40). The features, visual basic language, the ability to link C-code, and the excellent documentation won me over. Then I joined the Arduino band-wagon with the 32-bit Due release. With all the features I want, the forum, with a price nearly $10 cheaper than a BS2, it was a no-brainer. That said, I'm not married to Arduino or any other vendor. I'm actually more interested in the Propeller-2 (with GCC) than the Arduino Tre. The features are known more or less, so it'll boil down to price. Arguably, one of the reasons why R-Pi is so popular is because of price. So I hope Parallax gets it right.
It's the other way around ─ the marketplace being "awash" in, deluged by, Arduino clones.
You need to research more threads. There's been plenty of debate regarding Spin. Parallax has for some time known that Spin is not what many schools want to use for teaching kids programming, so they've invested heavily in C development, including entirely new educational courseware that concentrate only on C. The ActivityBoard is an enabler of that courseware. That doesn't mean they have to remove Spin as an option. There are many people that like the language.
Cheap will always attract attention, but the Rapsberry Pi platform is not a business model anyone but the Chinese can emulate, even when not considering components used that might be subsidized by their makers (in the interest of gaining market share). The RPi foundation is a non-profit charity. You can't compare their model with a for profit business like Parallax.
I have never found a single MCU or SBC that had all the features I needed for all the types of projects I do. I stopped looking for the "perfect" board years ago. I just pick the one closest to the feature set I need. Sometimes I can still get by with a $1.49 AVR.
@Gordon I think this is missing the point. The big deal was that the Arduino design was "open source". As was the gcc compiler that it used and the IDE they put on top. Anybody could run with it. And they did. WTF?. All the Arduino tools are Free and Open Source software. If anyone want's it to work in the Apple walled garden that is not a technical problem. Only an artificial commercial barrier.
Ken Gracey, Well, you know how sick I feel about that, let's not go there.
All the world and his dog knows that BASIC is not the way to go. Chip. bless him, devised Spin for the Propeller. It's simple, it's brilliant. What's to complain about?
You might as well state "Propeller 1 - Multi-Core with 8 32 bit Processors" as that is what already exists.
For a sample of the many reasons about why we choose the propeller please read (http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php/148439-Why-would-you-choose-a-Propeller-instead-of...)
BTW: The Propeller 1 (and 2) do support C. You can even find a lot of educational material in (http://learn.parallax.com/)
I'll grant you that despite all the excellent tutorials and step-by-step educational solutions provided by Parallax there still are IMHO two adoption difficulties:
1 - Learning TRUE multi-processing concepts. It's not trivial and it's a steep learning curve specially for beginners
2 - SW peripherals are great & flexible, but again for the beginner (and the experienced) there are too many options
Maybe we should compile a "Transitioner's guide" with down to earth plug & play suggested SW peripherals for the commonly HW found devices, kind of a cookbook for the Propeller.
Alex
The BoeBot got all that started? Why not cut a little slack, rather than being so hard on your 'first kiss'?
The fact that your next move was to PicAxe was obviously an economy move.
Can you tell use why you so consistently need ADC? Sensors, battery monitoring, or what?
I like ZBasic as well, but that hasn't driven me to need Arduinos.
One success story follows another. Try not to blame the guy that came first of imaginary abuses of the customer. There may come a day when Arduino will be accused of the same thing.
And I think we all have heard long winded debates about the pros and cons of Spin and OBEX while you were away and not participating. It becomes tedious to hear it again when what we all would really like is a Propeller 2 to play with. But Parallax doesn't have corporate and uniiversity's resources behind the developent of the chip. It is mostly just Chip Gracey grinding away at doing the best he can 24/7. We feel very loyal as a real person is struggling to achieve something new and useful, not a bevy of scholars and engineers pumping out product for industry that funds their work with deep pockets.
ZBasic had its failures and drama. It appears to be a fork of BasicX. Ask Don Kitzner why he calls his company Elba Corp. And BasicX did suffer with flawed AVR product from the early days. There is a lot of history that neither of us know about who really was struggling and why.
i see... policing the English teachers of the world for negligences. I am awash in editing from PJ. All in good fun.
I will go and hide now.
The "Arduino" is an Open Source design. The schematic, the PCB art work, the IDE, the compiler, the software libraries That is the whole point. Anyone can make one.
It just happens to use a micro-controller made by ATMEL. Which of course is a closed as closed can be. None of this is ATMEL's fault. It's just what happened with their device.
Sadly Parallax did not catch on to this "Open Source" idea until quite recently.
The Propeller OBEX has been open source from Day One. What do you mean recently? If you mean IDEs and languages, there was a huge surge of language developers that wanted proprietary control of their pride and joy. Some wanted Parallax to sell there languages for the Propeller, some wanted Parallax to buy their language support services forever, and some did provide open source.
So Parallax was pretty much left to waiting to see what direction to go rather than just throw money at every language that claimed to be best. After all, the bulk of R&D cash has been going into the Propeller2. And there is the ever present payroll and overhead that must be met.
I repeat, Parallax is a small business, 50 or so employees. At least they have been fortunate to get some very creative people that could go elsewhere for a bigger paycheck, but enjoy the creative freedom.
Here is proof that Arduino code can run on a Propeller.
parallax.com/showthread.php/148401-Propeller-Chip-runs-a-mostly-unmodified-Arduino-program-(video)
LOL..yes cheap will always catch attention...especially of management looking to maximize bonuese...err...profits.
I for one have spent many man years educating management..who knows better...that cheap is almost never the best engineering solution for a new product.
EDIT: To be honest, I think the only reason I play with the Prop is because of the challenge of programming the thing. And now with the P2 debacle I almost think it's time to quit messing around with the Prop and start tinkering with the Arduino.
I always found C to be awkward and abstract. For someone who has used the BS2, get an Activity Board for $50 and don't bother with the Arduino.
Interesting. What "P2 debacle" is referred to here?
Also, I'm still confused with the P2 flash RAM for programs. The specs say "Non-volatile application and data storage via external SPI EEPROM or SD card". Does the mean no onboard flash for program space? If so, this is a problem.
There is no FLASH on a Propeller or a Propeller II. Seems any process affordable by Parallax to add FLASH on chip is way too expensive.
Is this a Problem? Not really. The EEPROM used by the Propeller is tiny and very cheap. As will be the P2's SPI device.
What I meant was that when I discovered the Propeller Spin programming could only be done with the Prop Tool. Which is still closed source and Windows only. That was enough to make me want to skip the whole idea.
Luckily I soon found Cliff Biffle's PASM assembler. Even created my own simple Pascal like language for the Propeller using that assembler for code generation. But then came the cross-platform BST and HomeSpun tools and life was good.
Serious open source tools did not come until, propgcc, openspin and SimpleIDE.
I do believe this lack of opensource and cross platform tools put off a lot of developers who ended up going with Arduino instead.
Yes, Arduino code can run on a Prop. Thanks to the development of propgcc.
Perhaps I read too much into your post. I think we are in agreement that Spin has been a hinderence to Propeller adoption.
Given how weird the Propeller chip is and then throw in a weird, closed source language on top with non-cross platform tools and it starts to be amazing that any Propellers were ever sold.
I'm not sure if Spin itself, the language, is the big hindrance or the fact that it was a closed source and non-cross platform deal at the time.
Still it could not have been any other way. C does not fly well on the Propeller, in fact C did not fly at all until Bill Henning conceived the LMM approach.
Having said that I think Spin is a great language for beginners, as is the ultra simple to use Prop Tool. Taken as whole Propeller and Spin are wonderfully integrated.
I see, program storage will be handled by external EEPROM integrated on the P2 board.
As a potential customer, browsing through Adafruit and Sparkfun, I'd like to see an intro that succinctly emphasizes the uniqueness of the multi-processor and describes the advantages in language the broader market can understand quickly. Unfamiliar terms like COGS, spin etc. are unmoving. Hyperlinks to specific Parallax sites can elaborate further. To really capture the imagination, showoff cool P2 example projects (e.g., 3D Printer, Drone, etc.).
Here's a succinct list of specs that attract my attention:
Propeller-2 Module
If the Propeller 2 costs $39.95 - or even a third that - then Parallax will be out of business in very short order.
Heck a Prop Plugs costs more than half that around here.
I agree with tryit that the Propeller does not immediately catch peoples attention with all the talk of COG, HUB, Spin etc that have no meaning to regular MCU users.
In fact years ago I nearly skipped over the Prop as it did not show up in the huge array of devices offered by our local distributor. They had done the typical thing of allowing one to search for device based on RAM, ROM. MIPs. etc etc. Seems they could not find any category for the Prop. It was not even in the micro-controller section of their catalogue.
But the truth is that when you have a device that is so small and has so much i/o, it becomes more imperative that the product be sold attached to a motherboard of some sort. And since, the Propeller is unlike the BS2 in that it doesn't need to be produced in one location to protect the intellectual property rights, the motherboard can be made in China or anywhere and by anybody that has a competitive solution.
In other words, Parallax would be quite happy to sell chips in bulk and have other prosper. I have no idea who is setting the Arduino Tre price, but that is likely the 'motherboard developer' and not the chip manufacturer.
Historically, all chip manufacturers do product exemplar motherboards to help launch new devices. But these are just about to be the least competitive in the marketplace. I purchased my first Propeller Demo boards for over $100 USD and they did demonstrate; but were never optimal for use. And now, Parallax has the Propeller Project Board for about $25 is really appropriate for a hobbyist to build on.
@Tryit
Are you going to just debate on and on, or are you will to try a Propeller 1 for personal use? I can't see how we can really present all the points and features that are really available, you have to use it to discover what it does.
And trying to nail down the Propeller 2 for comparison with the Tre is a fools errand. They will never be close to being the same -- you might as well compare a toaster to a trash compactor.
BTW, Heater is a Raspbery Pi loyalist under deep cover. It is no wonder the two of you get along.
@Tryit
You make no mention of the Propeller's powerful i/o arbitration (versus the AVR rather conflicted i/o dedication to particulars)
Actually I'm also something of a deserter. We use a bunch of different ARM boards. Each selected to fit it's role best. I'm looking forward to getting a more modern ARM board with SATA interfaces etc, like a Cubie Truck. Just to see how it flies. None of these are comparable to Propeller, they are very different animals.
I have a Cubieboard ONE, but the CubieTruck is really a better value and 2nd and 3rd editions have the benefit of input from your customers about what the 1st didn't quite achieve.
Recently I picked up an IDE to SATA converter for harddisks. I have yet to get the Cubieboard running with a Sata harddisk, but if the disk is already formated; it is a very normal proceedure for getting it mounted. You have to identify a 'super block' that indicates what file format to expect and such. You can use NTFS, but it is really an awkward choice for a Linux system. If would be likely best to use EXT3. But if you want, you can partition and have both NTFS and EXT3 in different partitions.
Regardless, the hard disk will not be the Boot disk for the Cubieboard. The OS boot image resides on the the SDcard, and there is yet another level below that (similar to a BIOS?) that will boot the SDcard after a choice of OSes (Android or Linux) are selected.
Frankly, for most of my stuff, it is just easier to use a Linux Desktop. The Arduino Tre is going to have to struggle against the community of Raspberry Pi users and Cubbieboard users.
I am not surprised you like the Cubieboard as it is all ARM (which with developed out of Cambridge) and actually the Cubieboard may be closer to producing revenue for the U.K. as the Pi is a Broadcom version (ARM licensed to a US company).
These days, ARM is going into chips completely for servers. It is a big deal. Having a market of 50,000,000 chips sold means that it is giving Intel via AMD a big challenge -- extremely low power and tiny footprint.
But I still contend this is not a direct competitor of Parallax as you have to learn a lot broader curriculum to master these. The Propeller is about a narrower, but ever important topic of learning -- getting the most out of a CPU.
@Heater
So I guess I should have said you are a deep cover ARM loyalist. BTW, your Raspberry Pi Founder resigned from the Board and went to work for Broadcom. Industry rewards any salesman that can move 2,000,000 proscessors within one FYI.
As far as I know he has not resigned from anything and has been working for Broadcom ever since I heard of a Raspberry Pi.
Although he is no longer a trustee of the foundation.
He is by no means employed as a "salesman" by anyone.
Yep, industry does sometime reward really clever guys. Sounds good to me.