Well, in Wikipedia it says he is no longer on the Pi Foundation board and that he now works at Broadcom. I guess you are saying he has been working at Broadcom all along. I thought he was an educator, not working in industry. A bit of ledgerdomain seems to fog the story.
If he didn't resign from the board, how did he leave?
As far as 'clever', that word seems to have several layers of meaning to the British. Do you mean smart? Do you mean talented? Do you mean shrewd? Or do you mean all of these?
We are all employed as salesmen from our first paycheck.
Well his bio is on that very same wiki page you are quoting. It's says he is no longer a trustee of the foundation. So what? I have no idea when that happened. Still the foundation is run by volunteers of which he is one. There is a only one employee taken on recently.
He has been at Broadcom for ages.
I'm sure you have read the bio you linked to did you miss the part about "Director of Studies in Computer Science at St John's College, Cambridge with responsibility for undergraduate admissions and organising teaching for St John's undergraduate students on the Computer Science Tripos".
Decide for yourself if any of that is "clever" or not and in which way.
If by " ledgerdomain" you are implying that someone is lying then I'm speechless.
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.
$39.95??? (price for integrated system on module)
I made a critical error on one of the P2 specs (ADC resolution) and now corrected. Also, price is just my guess for the whole integrated P2 system, not just the chip itself. As a common Maker for one-of projects, I have no interest in dealing with bare SMT chips.
You have to give Parallax credit for having the cajones to create their own chip. Look at all the semiconductor companies that have died over the years.
I heard of the Propeller long before I ever heard of an Arduino or a Raspberry Pi or a Beagle Bone.
Has anyone heard of the Mini Board or Handy Board?
Think of it this way. Long after the Arduino is forgotten the Propeller will still be here.
You have to give Parallax credit for having the cajones to create their own chip. Look at all the semiconductor companies that have died over the years.
Yes, it's no doubt an impressive feat given the other gorillas (MicroChip, ATMEL, TI, etc.)
Think of it this way. Long after the Arduino is forgotten the Propeller will still be here.
As an unbiased outsider, I disagree. Arduino is more of a movement, an idea, moreso than a company. Parallax is a company and Propeller is a product. I would agree that Parallax started the microcontroller/module idea with the Basic Stamp, but the movement is more synonomous with Arduino now and for the foreseeable future. It would be nice to have an Arduino board using a Prop-2 chip in the future. At least a few Arduino users aren't opposed to this.
Arduino is going to be around for a long time since it's not bound to single processor or vendor, plus being open source. You can find variations of Arduino running on 8 bit PIC's, AVR's, ARM's and PIC32's.
That's a nice healthy ecosystem.
More than that, it has a avid following among non-geeks and large mind share and is a easy market to get into.
I made a critical error on one of the P2 specs (ADC resolution) and now corrected. Also, price is just my guess for the whole integrated P2 system, not just the chip itself. As a common Maker for one-of projects, I have no interest in dealing with bare SMT chips.
It seems that Chip Gracy changed the whole Propeller 2 design as of April 7.
Now 16 cogs, faster and better video support, 512Kb ram, down to 64 ADC/DAC i/o
It sounds very interesting.. a lot more tha the original specs, except ADC/DAC has been reduced from 92. I just hope this is nearing the end of a rather long saga of creativity.
It seems that Chip Gracy changed the whole Propeller 2 design as of April 7. Now 16 cogs, faster and better video support, 512Kb ram, down to 64 ADC/DAC i/o
If indeed true, 16 cores is an impressive improvement over 8, and 512KB RAM is a major upgrade to 126K. The I/O reduction from 92 to 64 is a small let down. I suppose if I had a choice between the original P-2 specs and the April 7 specs, I'd go with April 7. Is the product still due at year's end?
If indeed true, 16 cores is an impressive improvement over 8, and 512KB RAM is a major upgrade to 126K. The I/O reduction from 92 to 64 is a small let down. I suppose if I had a choice between the original P-2 specs and the April 7 specs, I'd go with April 7. Is the product still due at year's end?
I don't think the 16x64x512 design is officially the P2. It's up to Parallax to speak to names and final plans. It is a strong candidate for the next release of a Propeller architecture chip. I'm just here because it is fun and educational to be this close to the design process of a chip. It's an unprecedented opportunity!!
Does anyone really need 64 ADC i/o much less 92 ADC i/o. Anything over 8 is likely a bit rare. I suspect, the prime advantage of having so may provided is that the one's used can be kept away from each other to avoid cross-talk.
BTW Some of us are making progress with migrating Arduino 3D printer firmware code to the Propeller via the libPropelleruino library. Jazzed succeeded in getting a sucessful binary built and believes he can resolve all the error and warning messages.
Does anyone really need 64 ADC i/o much less 92 ADC i/o.
I'll say we don't know the answer to that yet because nobody has really had 64 (or 96) ADC pins available to them yet!! It will be fun to watch though!!
Men might as well project a voyage to the Moon as attempt to employ steam navigation against the stormy North Atlantic Ocean.
Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia. - Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859), Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy at University College, London.
Computers in the future may...perhaps only weigh 1.5 tons. - Popular Mechanics, 1949.
There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home. - Kenneth Olsen, president and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.
I'll say we don't know the answer to that yet because nobody has really had 64 (or 96) ADC pins available to them yet!! It will be fun to watch though!!
I suggest you coin a murphy computing law about ADCs while you have a chance. ;-)
@Loopy, Please make sure Martin_H gets appropriate credit for the libPropellerino code ... I was just using the pieces he added. We're in it together to a point, but Martin_H is the keeper of the repository jewels.
Well, with 64 ADC and 16 cogs, Parallax may well be targeting Tesla recharge systems for a preferred client. But outside of battery management systems, I can't really think of another useful application.
My first plan was make a Professional level 16 channel stereo audio mixer+recorder with effects, but the ADCs don't have enough resolution (18 bits), and the analog layout would be too picky anyway.
So, I'm planning to just make a not-so-pro level 16 channel stereo audio mixer+recorder with effects ;-)
The more cog and main memory, the better. Maybe there will several different versions depending on the need.
One for large programs and one for lots of I/O.
@tryit
Just another interesting observation that came in.
The ArduinoUno and all those other Arduino's seem to use a rather non-standard compile with their C code. That implies that learning to program in C on an Arduino may actually require later unlearning the Arduino-way in order to work on more mainstream platforms.
On the other hand, the PropellerC and SimpleIDE seem to take a more conventional approach. So this problem may not arise.
There is a place for Chip's smart analog/counter based I/O pins. Hobbyists don't really need them but industry does.
Take a look at the offerings from Freescale especially the chips that have the eTPU microengine included. They have several lines of micro with 64 channels of the C/T's and other assorted specialized I/O for the automotive industry among others.
Those chips aren't cheap either, in the $20 range.
@tryit
Just another interesting observation that came in.
The ArduinoUno and all those other Arduino's seem to use a rather non-standard compile with their C code. That implies that learning to program in C on an Arduino may actually require later unlearning the Arduino-way in order to work on more mainstream platforms.
On the other hand, the PropellerC and SimpleIDE seem to take a more conventional approach. So this problem may not arise.
The Arduino language is based on Wiring, and it does quite a bit to abstract away many of the intimate details of working with a given processor. PropellerC and SimpleIDE follow a similar concept, but as you say, it is a bit closer to a traditional workflow.
IMO, the big benefit of having aq Wiring-based workflow is that it allows you to be instantly productive at that particular level with any given microcontroller. Basically the Wiring language becomes in usagemuch like a VM language like Java, in that it should be possible to run a program on any platform using the language, provided the libraries are implemented for the controller.
I had contacted the Wiring folks about adding the Propeller when GCC was in alpha, and never got far with the, but it might be worth re-visiting. Or maybe porting the mbed libs to Prop++, since the onboard bootloader should allow for a similar programming experience.
Wiring is an open source electronics prototyping platform composed of a programming language, an integrated development environment (IDE), and a single-board microcontroller.
So I think that it's valid to say that there is a Wiring language, which is the language used in the Wiring development platform. Even though the language itself is not called Wiring, it seems OK to informally call it the Wiring language. And yes, we all know that it's really made up of an API on top of C++.
No. Call me old fashioned but I draw a lines between, a language, a compiler, an IDE, a library. And so on.
These are all independent parts.
I do understand that for the intended Arduino audience it's not desired to confuse them with details. Like a "car" is a "car" never mind the engine, clutch, gearbox, differential, etc etc, Just give me a steering wheel and a gas pedal.
I see where you are going with the "domain specific language" thing. It's as well you put a smiley on there
Abstraction, yes. Like when I write code for Linux use the POSIX API. Last time a made Windows program it was the Win32API. Now I might go cross platform and use the Qt API.
But, in all those cases I'm using C/C++.
Why should we let the Arduino and "wiring" guys get away with this slight of hand?
Hmm, I thought processing was the thing that encapsulates (hides) many of the C++ details in Arduino programming. The wiring.c files that are used seem to provide the generic hardware API access.
BTW, the AVR wiring.c files are a horrible mess. Propeller variants are very small and simple relatively speaking ;-)
I see where you are going with the "domain specific language" thing. It's as well you put a smiley on there
Abstraction, yes. Like when I write code for Linux use the POSIX API. Last time a made Windows program it was the Win32API. Now I might go cross platform and use the Qt API.
But, in all those cases I'm using C/C++.
Why should we let the Arduino and "wiring" guys get away with this slight of hand?
Heater, I deleted my post because I didn't know if I really wanted to go there.
I think it well to refer to Wiring or Arduino as a language vs. C/C++ in the general sense that the main target audience tends to be less computer-savvy.
The whole concept of "processing" and the Arduino is actually brilliant. They have done a brilliant job of hiding all the unpleasant details.
Never do they talk about C++, no they give it a new name and then document what you need to know to get it running. Nothing more. The documentation for beginners is brilliant.
The IDE hides you from all that main() nonsense and header files etc. At least to start with.
Hmm, I thought processing was the thing that encapsulates (hides) many of the C++ details in Arduino programming. The wiring.c files that are used seem to provide the generic hardware API access.
BTW, the AVR wiring.c files are a horrible mess. Propeller variants are very small and simple relatively speaking ;-)
Processing is it's own ecosystem, built on Java. The IDE is Java, and the Processing language is a set of Java classes that abstract Java the way that Wiring abstracts C++.
Wait a frikken minute. Somebody is doing a good job of confusing everybody. We are talking about the Arduino here. That means we are talking about the ATMEL 8 bit micro that the Arduino uses. That means we are talking about C/C++ compiled with GCC to run on that ATMEL chip. For sure Java does not.
Now, I might be out of touch with the latest Arduino devices but my guess is it's about the same.
The Arduino IDE may well be written in Java. That is another story,
Comments
If he didn't resign from the board, how did he leave?
As far as 'clever', that word seems to have several layers of meaning to the British. Do you mean smart? Do you mean talented? Do you mean shrewd? Or do you mean all of these?
We are all employed as salesmen from our first paycheck.
He has been at Broadcom for ages.
I'm sure you have read the bio you linked to did you miss the part about "Director of Studies in Computer Science at St John's College, Cambridge with responsibility for undergraduate admissions and organising teaching for St John's undergraduate students on the Computer Science Tripos".
Decide for yourself if any of that is "clever" or not and in which way.
If by " ledgerdomain" you are implying that someone is lying then I'm speechless.
I made a critical error on one of the P2 specs (ADC resolution) and now corrected. Also, price is just my guess for the whole integrated P2 system, not just the chip itself. As a common Maker for one-of projects, I have no interest in dealing with bare SMT chips.
I heard of the Propeller long before I ever heard of an Arduino or a Raspberry Pi or a Beagle Bone.
Has anyone heard of the Mini Board or Handy Board?
Think of it this way. Long after the Arduino is forgotten the Propeller will still be here.
Yes, it's no doubt an impressive feat given the other gorillas (MicroChip, ATMEL, TI, etc.)
As an unbiased outsider, I disagree. Arduino is more of a movement, an idea, moreso than a company. Parallax is a company and Propeller is a product. I would agree that Parallax started the microcontroller/module idea with the Basic Stamp, but the movement is more synonomous with Arduino now and for the foreseeable future. It would be nice to have an Arduino board using a Prop-2 chip in the future. At least a few Arduino users aren't opposed to this.
http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?PHPSESSID=ocqd77chdn5nfv2c6tni4i81q0&topic=231643.0
That's a nice healthy ecosystem.
More than that, it has a avid following among non-geeks and large mind share and is a easy market to get into.
It seems that Chip Gracy changed the whole Propeller 2 design as of April 7.
Now 16 cogs, faster and better video support, 512Kb ram, down to 64 ADC/DAC i/o
It sounds very interesting.. a lot more tha the original specs, except ADC/DAC has been reduced from 92. I just hope this is nearing the end of a rather long saga of creativity.
If indeed true, 16 cores is an impressive improvement over 8, and 512KB RAM is a major upgrade to 126K. The I/O reduction from 92 to 64 is a small let down. I suppose if I had a choice between the original P-2 specs and the April 7 specs, I'd go with April 7. Is the product still due at year's end?
As of April 9, the printed specs have not been updated:
http://www.parallaxsemiconductor.com/Products/propeller2specs
I don't think the 16x64x512 design is officially the P2. It's up to Parallax to speak to names and final plans. It is a strong candidate for the next release of a Propeller architecture chip. I'm just here because it is fun and educational to be this close to the design process of a chip. It's an unprecedented opportunity!!
BTW Some of us are making progress with migrating Arduino 3D printer firmware code to the Propeller via the libPropelleruino library. Jazzed succeeded in getting a sucessful binary built and believes he can resolve all the error and warning messages.
I'll say we don't know the answer to that yet because nobody has really had 64 (or 96) ADC pins available to them yet!!
I suggest you coin a murphy computing law about ADCs while you have a chance. ;-)
http://www.murphys-laws.com/murphy/murphy-computer.html
@Loopy, Please make sure Martin_H gets appropriate credit for the libPropellerino code ... I was just using the pieces he added. We're in it together to a point, but Martin_H is the keeper of the repository jewels.
Thank you! This is a great collection!
I must have AWESOME algorithms!!!!!
So, I'm planning to just make a not-so-pro level 16 channel stereo audio mixer+recorder with effects ;-)
One for large programs and one for lots of I/O.
Just another interesting observation that came in.
The ArduinoUno and all those other Arduino's seem to use a rather non-standard compile with their C code. That implies that learning to program in C on an Arduino may actually require later unlearning the Arduino-way in order to work on more mainstream platforms.
On the other hand, the PropellerC and SimpleIDE seem to take a more conventional approach. So this problem may not arise.
Take a look at the offerings from Freescale especially the chips that have the eTPU microengine included. They have several lines of micro with 64 channels of the C/T's and other assorted specialized I/O for the automotive industry among others.
Those chips aren't cheap either, in the $20 range.
They sell a lot of them,
The Arduino language is based on Wiring, and it does quite a bit to abstract away many of the intimate details of working with a given processor. PropellerC and SimpleIDE follow a similar concept, but as you say, it is a bit closer to a traditional workflow.
IMO, the big benefit of having aq Wiring-based workflow is that it allows you to be instantly productive at that particular level with any given microcontroller. Basically the Wiring language becomes in usagemuch like a VM language like Java, in that it should be possible to run a program on any platform using the language, provided the libraries are implemented for the controller.
I had contacted the Wiring folks about adding the Propeller when GCC was in alpha, and never got far with the, but it might be worth re-visiting. Or maybe porting the mbed libs to Prop++, since the onboard bootloader should allow for a similar programming experience.
Propeller IDE is not a language. It's an IDE.
It's already possible to compile C++ programs written to the "Wiring" API for he Propeller.
Perhaps, may be...
No. Call me old fashioned but I draw a lines between, a language, a compiler, an IDE, a library. And so on.
These are all independent parts.
I do understand that for the intended Arduino audience it's not desired to confuse them with details. Like a "car" is a "car" never mind the engine, clutch, gearbox, differential, etc etc, Just give me a steering wheel and a gas pedal.
I see where you are going with the "domain specific language" thing. It's as well you put a smiley on there
Abstraction, yes. Like when I write code for Linux use the POSIX API. Last time a made Windows program it was the Win32API. Now I might go cross platform and use the Qt API.
But, in all those cases I'm using C/C++.
Why should we let the Arduino and "wiring" guys get away with this slight of hand?
BTW, the AVR wiring.c files are a horrible mess. Propeller variants are very small and simple relatively speaking ;-)
Heater, I deleted my post because I didn't know if I really wanted to go there.
I think it well to refer to Wiring or Arduino as a language vs. C/C++ in the general sense that the main target audience tends to be less computer-savvy.
The whole concept of "processing" and the Arduino is actually brilliant. They have done a brilliant job of hiding all the unpleasant details.
Never do they talk about C++, no they give it a new name and then document what you need to know to get it running. Nothing more. The documentation for beginners is brilliant.
The IDE hides you from all that main() nonsense and header files etc. At least to start with.
All in all, a job well done.
Processing is it's own ecosystem, built on Java. The IDE is Java, and the Processing language is a set of Java classes that abstract Java the way that Wiring abstracts C++.
Wait a frikken minute. Somebody is doing a good job of confusing everybody. We are talking about the Arduino here. That means we are talking about the ATMEL 8 bit micro that the Arduino uses. That means we are talking about C/C++ compiled with GCC to run on that ATMEL chip. For sure Java does not.
Now, I might be out of touch with the latest Arduino devices but my guess is it's about the same.
The Arduino IDE may well be written in Java. That is another story,