Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Interview with Chip on Embedded.fm — Parallax Forums

Interview with Chip on Embedded.fm

Ken GraceyKen Gracey Posts: 7,392
edited 2015-02-09 12:09 in Propeller 1
Chip has a one-hour interview on Embedded.fm right here http://embedded.fm/episodes/2015/2/4/87-make-my-own-steel-foundry

Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.

Comments

  • PublisonPublison Posts: 12,366
    edited 2015-02-05 10:54
    Listening while I type.

    What an awesome interview!
  • Oldbitcollector (Jeff)Oldbitcollector (Jeff) Posts: 8,091
    edited 2015-02-05 11:37
    It's refreshing to hear Chip's love of the Spin and the reasoning behind it's creation. Good interview!
  • average joeaverage joe Posts: 795
    edited 2015-02-05 12:21
    Great interview so far! Thanks for pointing this out Ken! 15 minutes in and I can't stop nodding!
  • potatoheadpotatohead Posts: 10,261
    edited 2015-02-05 12:34
    Nice treat for my drive.
  • WhitWhit Posts: 4,191
    edited 2015-02-06 11:36
    Thanks Ken - this is great stuff.
  • JohnR2010JohnR2010 Posts: 431
    edited 2015-02-08 08:15
    Fantastic Interview!! I couldn't agree more with Chip's comment on how people have come to expect a state of brokenness in today's modern systems and to him that is just not acceptable!!

    Thanks Ken for sharing this. Once Chip gets the Prop II out I would love to see more interviews.
  • Dave HeinDave Hein Posts: 6,347
    edited 2015-02-08 08:39
    I found his description about the development of Spin very enlightening. I now have a better understanding of the rational behind the Spin language, and it actually makes sense to me now. :)
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2015-02-08 08:42
    Dave Hein wrote: »
    I found his description about the development of Spin very enlightening. I now have a better understanding of the rational behind the Spin language, and it actually makes sense to me now. :)
    I found it interesting that he complained about cryptic characters in C code but I think Spin has far more cryptic operators than C.
  • PublisonPublison Posts: 12,366
    edited 2015-02-08 08:47
    Another good older YouTube interview:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R9LZ0Th77U

    Watch all 7!
  • Dave HeinDave Hein Posts: 6,347
    edited 2015-02-08 09:48
    David Betz wrote: »
    I found it interesting that he complained about cryptic characters in C code but I think Spin has far more cryptic operators than C.
    Yes, I thought about the #> and <# operators when he mentioned that. He was talking about the Spin REPEAT-FROM-TO loop versus the C for(;;; ){} loop. I understand what he's talking about, but I think that comes down to personal preference.

    The part that made sense was the type-less variables in Spin versus the usage of types in C. C can be quite confusing. I can never remember if the result of (unsigned int)x * (signed int)y is signed or unsigned, and there are many more confusing type-traps that the C programmer can get caught in. So the type-less nature of Spin does simplify things a bit. The drawback is that the Spin compiler has no way to warn that programmer when he does bad things, such as passing a number to a method that expects a pointer.
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2015-02-08 09:51
    Dave Hein wrote: »
    Yes, I thought about the #> and <# operators when he mentioned that. He was talking about the Spin REPEAT-FROM-TO loop versus the C for(;;; ){} loop. I understand what he's talking about, but I think that comes down to personal preference.

    The part that made sense was the type-less variables in Spin versus the usage of types in C. C can be quite confusing. I can never remember if the result of (unsigned int)x * (signed int)y is signed or unsigned, and there are many more confusing type-traps that the C programmer can get caught in. So the type-less nature of Spin does simplify things a bit. The drawback is that the Spin compiler has no way to warn that programmer when he does bad things, such as passing a number to a method that expects a pointer.
    Actually, I agree with him as well that the for statement syntax in C is unfortunate.
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2015-02-08 10:10
    The was a great interview.

    What struck me was Chip's comments about the simplicity of a system without types and it's handling of asynchronous events.

    Chip is going to love JavaScript when he discovers it :)
  • potatoheadpotatohead Posts: 10,261
    edited 2015-02-08 12:03
    Chip is going to love JavaScript when he discovers it

    Indeed. I had the same thought! Javascript is really lean in the same way SPIN is, allowing all sorts of bizarre things, but also allowing cool things too. It's sort of up to the user to get it, rather than navigate a more structured environment.

    There is one subtle dynamic about SPIN, related to cryptic things, and that is one doesn't really have to explore those to get somewhere in SPIN. Almost everything you type in SPIN is meaningful in terms of telling it what you want.

    Let me coin the term meta-cryptic.

    In C, there are a fair number of cryptic things one must know to do anything. In SPIN there are far fewer of these. The feel I got was one doesn't need to know as much or know to know to describe to SPIN as much as there is in C. That's meta-cryptic.

    In monkey see, monkey do, fashion, somebody can make their SPIN program look like one they saw, and it's more likely to do something for them. Put another way.

    Once a person has gotten past the basics, and real meaning starts to happen, then SPIN has all these little operators. I felt too many at first. But now, it seems to make sense.

    A similar thing happens with C, but the initial stage is not as lean of a climb as it is with SPIN.
  • ErNaErNa Posts: 1,752
    edited 2015-02-08 12:05
    I am just doing first steps in JavaScript and it is strange to have floating points as array indexes ;-)
  • Heater.Heater. Posts: 21,230
    edited 2015-02-08 12:19
    Of course I was joking a bit (or a lot)

    JS is indeed "lean" when it comes to types but it's seriously un-lean when it comes to the run time environment. JS can be run on micro-controllers but not one a small as a Prop.

    Then of course the async nature of JS is not the same as the async nature actually having multiple processors to handle events.

    ErNa,

    You probably don't want to use float values as array indexes. Performance will be terrible.
  • potatoheadpotatohead Posts: 10,261
    edited 2015-02-08 14:57
    Yes of course.

    But, as a language, it presents pretty lean. It's entirely possible to put somebody into an environment, teach them a few basic things and see them accomplish quite a lot.

    I ran through one of the Code Academy courses and was reminded of my SPIN experiences.
  • K2K2 Posts: 693
    edited 2015-02-09 09:30
    Chip's interview was great. Loved it. Of course it makes the waiting for P2 that much more agonizing. I'm sorry the project is currently mired in such a tedious transition of transistor libraries. I'd volunteer to help but, foremost, this project needs to be successful. ;)

    Dave
  • cgraceycgracey Posts: 14,155
    edited 2015-02-09 11:01
    K2 wrote: »
    Chip's interview was great. Loved it. Of course it makes the waiting for P2 that much more agonizing. I'm sorry the project is currently mired in such a tedious transition of transistor libraries. I'd volunteer to help but, foremost, this project needs to be successful. ;)

    Dave

    The schematic translation was completed last week and now I'm working on the Prop1 code for our new Prop 1-2-3 FPGA board. It's actually just a port of old SX code to the Prop1. The PC-side software is already done, as it's just our old PX Loader product from 2003. It's very simple, but exactly what we need. I should have this port done by the end of the week, then I can get back into the Prop2 Verilog using our new FPGA board.

    I'm glad you're still interested in Prop2!
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2015-02-09 11:05
    cgracey wrote: »
    The schematic translation was completed last week and now I'm working on the Prop1 code for our new Prop 1-2-3 FPGA board. It's actually just a port of old SX code to the Prop1. The PC-side software is already done, as it's just our old PX Loader product from 2003. It's very simple, but exactly what we need. I should have this port done by the end of the week, then I can get back into the Prop2 Verilog using our new FPGA board.

    I'm glad you're still interested in Prop2!
    Sounds like you've already verified that the new Parallax FPGA board is working. Any idea when they'll be available in the Parallax store?
  • cgraceycgracey Posts: 14,155
    edited 2015-02-09 11:22
    David Betz wrote: »
    Sounds like you've already verified that the new Parallax FPGA board is working. Any idea when they'll be available in the Parallax store?

    I need to get the Prop1-based FPGA loader working before we can test every board-level connection to the FPGA pins. It's all looking good, so far. We've identified a few minor changes we need to make to the layout, so as soon as we are able to test everything, Daniel can make a new board and we'll get it in the pipe. It's a nice FPGA board and it does everything we need. Daniel did a great job on it.
  • PublisonPublison Posts: 12,366
    edited 2015-02-09 11:25
    Bring it on Chip.

    Thank for your perseverance. !
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    edited 2015-02-09 12:09
    cgracey wrote: »
    I need to get the Prop1-based FPGA loader working before we can test every board-level connection to the FPGA pins. It's all looking good, so far. We've identified a few minor changes we need to make to the layout, so as soon as we are able to test everything, Daniel can make a new board and we'll get it in the pipe. It's a nice FPGA board and it does everything we need. Daniel did a great job on it.
    Sounds like you're making great progress! Looking forward to a P2 update. :-)
Sign In or Register to comment.