Prop2 and Arduino?
blittled
Posts: 681
I just came across an interesting post on the Arduino site. http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?PHPSESSID=deork52bbe7bumc200826815i2&topic=234655.0. The person is advocating using the Prop2 (when it comes out) with the Arduino much like the Galilio and Tre.
Comments
"randomvibe" on the Arduino boards is "tryit" on the Parallax Forum. He started this thread a while ago.
Having an Arduino and Propeller2 on one board sort of begs the question of which brings what to the table, and which is dominant device. Is there a true synergy in such a construction?
It is amusing to read some of the nonsensical passionately loyal Arduino followers making dubious claims about the Propeller in general and the Propeller2. That is an indication that we internet users have social clumped together into like-minded groups for our forum visits.
Anything I might do with an Arduino and Propeller2 on one board, i suspect could be done more satisfactorily with two Propeller2's on one board. But there will always be those that just want a debate and have no real concept of the actual usefulness of such a mix and match approach. The reality is SOCs and microcontrollers have some decent reasons to be on the same board, but mixing microcontroller architectures on the same board is rather eclectic in a very naive way.
At least, the thread is making some aware that the Propeller does have C. It seems that many Arduinuts believe that is not true.
+1 - no reason to do that at all (until there is P2 silicon and tools and examples and App Notes.......
OP wasn't calling for an Arduino and Propeller2 on the same board, he was callong for an an Arduino board built on the Propeller2.
This would be like an officially sanctioned and supported Arduino board similar to Martin Hodge's ASC board.
Honestly, I don't understand all of the angst that you have towards the Arduino platform. After all, you _do_ have an underway thread and effort to port their CNC controllers, so you must receive some benefit from that community's contributions.
Perhaps if people here were a little bit less abrasive to other communities, the other communities _might_ be more interested in playing with your toys.
ymmv
+1
A compatible hardware platform is useful ... many MCU companies have done this. I'd love to make and sell a P2-Mega board for example.
Having software that will run Arduino code unmodified either in the Arduino application or in SimpleIDE is necessary too. There are a few things left to do in those areas ....
Unfortunately there are too many who spit on C around these parts for any Arduino visitors to take a Propeller-Arduino very seriously. Even some of the C lovers are C++ haters so that complicates things too. Everyone has their preferences (comfort zones), but for Parallax to succeed in grabbing market share will take some restraint and accommodation (which doesn't seem possible here).
Agreed. The more important picture, which TI and intel see, is in the Software side.
Chips themselves are so cheap these days, if someone really wants to add a AVR, the incremental cost of doing that is very low.
I think you over-state this a little. Forum noise is easily filtered.
Parallax understands the import of C and Education, so this area will continue to get good support.
Once P2 ramps more, the software will ramp with it, and a lot of that can occur before the P2 even hits silicon.
It will be very interesting to see how many P1+ COGS and Pin-cells can fit into the quite affordable BeMicro CV.
addit:
The power of these small PCB modules is quite rapidly exploding.
RaspPi have a Memory Module format variant coming, and offerings like the
MinnowBoard Max show just how much grunt can come
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2014/04/01/minnowboard-max/1
The Prop2 is well placed to handle real-time IO on these bigger-brained-bricks, which tend to all come with OS baggage.
That is correct.
Regarding the abrasiveness in this community toward Arduino and vise-versa... I did mention that we are all getting rather insular in various forums.
Frankly, my negativity evolved from having to follow the defense of Propellers and Parallax in the Parallax forums from people that visit to argue Arduino is better or best. I simply feel that it is inappropriate to visit and get into a huge pro and con debate that detracts from what we are really here for... to get support for Parallax products and to learn via helping others.
My attitudes are not limited to Arduino. I am endlessly annoyed my the educational superiority claims that Raspberry Pi made in its crowd funding. The reality is the user has to master Linux to master the Pi, and I can do that on any old junker PC. The Raspberry Pi foundation has to support all of Linux as well as its board to fulfill its educational promise. I think that Parallax's focus on one microcontroller architecture at the lower levels is a more feasible educational scheme. Arduino is many processors, many architectures at this point... a whole lot more need-to-know in order to get to go.
Should I be ashamed because I am porting Arduino code to the Propeller? I suppose if it were as easy as the conceptual portability of C claims it is, I might feel so. But so far, it is a rough slog to overcome contrasts in architecture. I am having to eliminate a ton of conditional compile data and do quite a bit of reading.
Arduino plays the 'education' card as much as anyone in the industry to justify value. But again, I just don't see a real curriculum as it jumps to Sketches and Wiring and disguises C or C++.
I just happen to be very generic in my loyalties to certain hardware and educational resources.
And sales drive educational opportunites are rather dubious to me at best. Teaching is a form of generousity.
Well, what you term an Arduino Board is rather unclear to me and likely many others.
You might have said an Arduino 'shield compatible' Propeller board for the sake of clarity. Since all the local over-the-counter electronics have stocked Arduino shields of various kinds, it seems that having such that is a Propeller solution is a good thing.
We used to call such devices 'motherboards' and shields of these days were called 'daughter boards'.
The dilemma is that naive enthusiast think that hybrid or multiple solutions really neat.
I generally have found that when I have two tools, I have to spend more time looking for the preferred one. And I have may waste a bit of time using the lesser one. And it always seems the best one is the one that disappears first (the thieves know value when they see it). So I just try to stick to one good tool that I can easily keep track of. I do admit my choice of best may be subjective, but I feel I learn more by not jumping around.
I guess I am just sold on Parallax.
1) The Pi foundation has never made any "superiority claims". What they have done is lay down a mission statement which revolves around bringing computer awareness to youngsters and stimulating a curiosity about programming. They have freely admitted, many times, that this is a work in progress...
2) There was no "crowd funding" involved with the creation of the Pi. Where did you get that idea from?
3) A Pi users does not have to "master Linux". There are plenty of kids, old and young, having fun learning to program in Python or Scratch or whatever. With the tools and libraries available it's not so hard. Perhaps one has to use a few Linux commands here and there. So what? That's what computers are about. It's no worse than what you needed to know to use a C64, or PC.
4) Yes, you can do a lot of this stuff on a "junker" PC. If you know how to do it already. It's hardly going to inspire the new generation of iGadget kids. It's bit like expecting a teenager to spend hundreds of hours fixing up his grandfathers old Morris Minor before he can drive anything.
5) The Raspberry Pi Foundation does support Linux very well. Perhaps not "all of Linux" because there is no such thing. They are both equally valid.
One can see that the Parallax approach comes from the angle of micro-controllers, hardware, robots, gadgets, bit and bytes. Low level programming and assembler.
The Pi approach comes from the software end. Top down.
The fact that a Pi can do many things that one might use an Arduino or Propeller for has led to some confusion here. The Pi is not really trying to compete in the micro-controller space.
As I think I have said before, the creators of the Pi put thousands of hours of their own time into it over years. Certainly with their own money initially. They don't deserve all this kicking.
Personally I see the Arduino, the Propeller, the Pi, the Espruino and others all as good things. They all get into peoples hands and enable them to explore and learn. This is not a zero sum game.
All this business of communities bad mouthing each other is silly.
1. Teachiing is a form of generousity based on a desire to contribute to others well-being; often requiring patience, knowledge, and recognizing what the learner requires.
2. Learning is a form of actualization based on desire or ambition to better oneself; often requires patience, listening, thoughtful effort, and trusting the lead of a teacher.
3. Education is a socio-political concept, often exploited by people that are neither teachers nor learners for decared goals that may be beyond real actuality.
I just tend to be doubtful of anything that starts out with an educational mission, but is selling something.
Regarding Raspberry Pi...
I just guess I am going to have to bite the bullet and say that they have succeeded in establishing themselves as a charitable educational foundation that is vibrant and growing in the U.K.
But, I still contend that the hardware itself is not adequately engineered and has some awkward aspects.
Living in Taiwan, I just wasn't aware of all that has gone on.
to be like Arduino's "wiring" to allow use of the uart, i2c, spi, etc. on the Pi. I wrote a simple C program to see if I could communicate with the Propeller (I could!) - does this look like Arduino's "wiring"?
#include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> #include <errno.h> #include <wiringPi.h> #include <wiringSerial.h> int fd; int main() { if ((fd = serialOpen ("/dev/ttyAMA0", 115200)) < 0) { fprintf(stderr, "Unable to open serial device: %s\n", strerror(errno)); return 1; } if (wiringPiSetup() == -1) { fprintf (stderr, "Unable to start wiringPi: %s\n", strerror (errno)); return 1; } for(;;) { delay(10); serialPutchar(fd, 72); while (serialDataAvail (fd)) { printf("%c", serialGetchar(fd)); fflush(stdout); } } return 0; }At the end of the day, when you get past the editor/IDE, and when you get past the libraries that are used, an Arduino is programmed in C++. Using the GCC compiler like any other C++ program. The same GCC compiler as used with SimpleIDE and the Propeller.
I really hate the way this fact is camouflaged. I understand why they do it. But it annoys me still.
I removed my rant about the Raspberry Pi Foundation in #15 above. Let's just say I was wrong. I was not fully aware of how this has taken hold in the U.K. to support computer education at earlier ages.
(Hardware-wise, I still have my preferences.)
Perhaps slowly you are getting the idea.
That "lofty mission statement" of the Raspi Foundation sounds very grand but it amounts to this: "When we were kids we had C64s, Sinclair Spectrums, and all manner of other machines to play with. We hacked, we learned. From BASIC to assembler. That experience has been missing from the world for two decades. Let's try and bring it back"
That simple idea is cool, it's great, it get's my full support.
Perhaps the hardware is not the best you can get now. Remember when they started you could get nothing.
Perhaps the whole idea is misguided and "a fad" that fizzles an burns. Perhaps other things will run it over.
I don't care. Somebody tried, and tried hard, to pull the world out of darkness. My hat is off to them.
If you listen to Ken an Chip here they have much the same "mission statement".
It's all good.
It's been difficult to put in a single sentence for the wide audience we serve, but it embodies these thoughts:
Make products that people enjoy using, absent of nonsense and full of clarity and known results without bloat (Chip). This rings with many of you.
Invent your Genius (from marketing). This is more suited for the new "Maker" economy and STEM education.
Make it all useful in school, because it's good for our students, our economy and we would've loved to have these products when we were younger.
Build it all here in 'Murica, leveraging the quality and patriotism concepts but not the redneck part.
Something like that. And yes, the 80's era computers were a big part of our motivation.
Ken Gracey
I don't know if you know, but the Raspberry Pi boards were originally built in China. Now they are built in the UK.
Bizarrely they are built in a Japanese, Sony, factory. Where they used to make televisions.
The significance of this is astounding. For years we have been told that it is not economically viable to manufacture in the UK/Europe/USA. Better to get the asians to do it with cheap labour.
Given the amazingly low target price of a Raspberry Pi we have to wonder how Apple and Co can justify moving all the work "off shore".
Aside: Let's not go crazy with "patriotism" thing else we end up with motorcycles like tractors. Like the Harley Davidsons.
Better to go for real quality and value.
Forgot about the role of good documentation, software and support. That's part of our mission, too.
Ken Gracey
Of course it is, but so what ?
It's a first pass, that has certainly reached critical mass, and they already have coming a memory card form factor version.
Others are following the low cost hardware line, a trend already started before RaspPi
Upcoming Ardunio platforms are going to leap ahead of RaspPi in HW resource, so there will be plenty of choice on HW.
Aspects of the intel Galileo make me cringe too, at not adequately engineered and has some awkward aspects but I also know it is a first pass.
All of this is good news for Parallax.
You already know my reply...............
www.cubieboard.org.