Tackyon's top position is due to Peter J being so clever. He has channeled all documention and support through the one thread -- which I expect may be the longest ever.
Happy to see Dave Hein point out that the P2 threads account for something more.
Actually, I think there are a number of very active Tachyon threads. Peter does an excellent job of supporting his product. This is in contrast with a number of languages that have been more of a proof-of-concept than something fleshed out enough to actually be useful. Unfortunately, my language tend to fit into the later category. :-( RossH has done an excellent job with Catalina as well although I haven't seen him around for a while. I hope he hasn't disappeared for good.
Tackyon's top position is due to Peter J being so clever. He has channeled all documention and support through the one thread -- which I expect may be the longest ever.
Happy to see Dave Hein point out that the P2 threads account for something more.
If you bother to do a search you will see that there are many Tachyon related threads, mostly to do with specific hardware or even the recent Hardware Explorer as well as the IoT5500 Ethernet modules etc. There is a lot of software and hardware and applications too that have been published but I wonder why you feel it necessary to minimize Tachyon's position by attributing this to a "clever" channelling through one thread? Do you begrudge me? Perhaps I shouldn't be so "clever" and not publish.
Also, why would anyone be happy with the volume of P2 threads (a planned Parallax product vs contributor's thread) considering that we haven't even sniffed a P2 yet after all these years?
I took Loopy's comment as meaning it's smart to keep a thread going on a particular topic, like Tachyon, rather than starting a new thread everyday on the same topic, has often happens.
I do agree, it seems there was far too much P2 debate that did not lead anywhere. A communal mass debate, if you see what I mean.
I took Loopy's comment as meaning it's smart to keep a thread going on a particular topic, like Tachyon, rather than starting a new thread everyday on the same topic, has often happens.
I do agree, it seems there was far too much P2 debate that did not lead anywhere. A communal mass debate, if you see what I mean.
Ah perhaps then, only "happy" though that the P2 threads accounted for more.....whatever that means.....ah it's late/early....time for forty winks.
Let's say that you have two props side by side, inter-connectected by 8 IO pins on each prop, with one being a master and the other a slave.
That sounds high in pin cost, so useful for tightly coupled Props, but less useful for general IO.
A General IO expansion library should be general enough talk to a Prop, or other slaves, and should also be able to talk to a RaspPi serial.
From what I've seen RasPi can go up to 4MBd (with some caveats) and there is a good UART summary here
Ah perhaps then, only "happy" though that the P2 threads accounted for more.....whatever that means.....ah it's late/early....time for forty winks.
I think Loopy was just pointing out that a thread can be kept alive by posting to it periodically over a period of years. If you divide the view count by the number of months a thread has been around you get a better idea of the popularity of the thread.
The Tachyon thread has been around for 31 months with an average view rate of 6,500 views/month. The "P2 Blog" thread was around for 43 months, and had an average view rate of 15,000 views per month. The "New 16-Cog" thread has been alive for 10 months with an average view rate of 17,000 views per month.
Some of the other shorter lived threads have probably had even higher monthly view rates. I think Parallax would be in real trouble if the most popular threads were focused on Forth.
Some of the other shorter lived threads have probably had even higher monthly view rates. I think Parallax would be in real trouble if the most popular threads were focused on Forth.
Ah, but think of how productive we'd be and how much fun we would have!
Tachyon thread "productivity" vs P2 thread - no contest
Now that seems like a harsh dig but I am still super annoyed from over the years that the P2 was spoilt by so many cooks in the kitchen who didn't exercise enough self-control to say their bit and back off and let Chip finish P2 before going on to the next generation. Now the best technology that Parallax has is almost a decade old and all that input would have been good for P3 while we could sit down to enjoy P2 in the meantime.
idbruce said Let's say that you have two props side by side, inter-connectected by 8 IO pins on each prop, with one being a master and the other a slave. The slave would simply provide input to the master, using OUTA on the 8 pins. The master would have a cog running a continous loop to perform a range read of INA on the 8 pins connected to the slave. The master could then perform a wide variety of functions and the function performed would be based upon the result of the range read.
Interesting thoughts there. I can see some different designs for different applications. The first example would be a "no wire" interface because you use the I2C bus and because this is already used for eeprom it doesn't use any additional pins. Then therel is a 1 wire comms, and maybe that second propeller is simply an address clock for an sram chip. Applications would be for dumping data quickly out to the touchscreen and also for fast ram access for Propeller C and for Zicog. So in that instance, you can have a common core of two propeller chips and one sram chip and use it for several things. Then there is bidirectional serial using 2 wires, and you can use 4 wires with an SPI master/slave, and then an 8 bit bus, and 8 bit with control bits. So there are all sorts of combinations and because the propeller does so much in software this allows a lot of flexibility. There could be a PCB and you could have a 12x2 header and that joins P0 to P11 using jumpers with as many or as few pins as you like.
I've got this half completed design in my head with two propeller chips and one sram chip. It could have applications for several of the "top 10" on this thread.
Phil is both a VIP and a VIC in that he is a very important contributor in terms of quantity and quality of projects. Not just that but they are always very interesting too. However for the "P2 droolers" perhaps if they lent their talents in a balanced way we could keep the home fires burning brightly while cheerfully warming ourselves around it rather being forced to shiver in the gradually cooling winds while fanning the remaining embers. Surely the more that are still around and active on P1 when P2 comes out, then greater the exposure and success of P2 itself. Forumistas, don't neglect the here and now by being too focused on the dream waiting for it to come true. When it does, it does, and it will be a dream come true.
BTW, why haven't you tried Tachyon yet? You've got no excuse since there are binaries sitting there waiting that will run on the most basic systems.
Agreed. Phil's projects are simply awesome and his documentation is fantastic. Some of those projects I would never have dreamed possible with the P1.
As for Tachyon. No excuse really except for time. Would you build me a 6.5MHz binary for the debug version thread please?
My office is bedroom to our youngest visitors - twin 10mth old boys who have been here for 5 of 8 weeks visiting during the cold of S.Korea. So most of my goodies are packed away.
idbruce said Let's say that you have two props side by side, inter-connectected by 8 IO pins on each prop, with one being a master and the other a slave. The slave would simply provide input to the master, using OUTA on the 8 pins. The master would have a cog running a continous loop to perform a range read of INA on the 8 pins connected to the slave. The master could then perform a wide variety of functions and the function performed would be based upon the result of the range read.
Interesting thoughts there. I can see some different designs for different applications. The first example would be a "no wire" interface because you use the I2C bus and because this is already used for eeprom it doesn't use any additional pins. Then therel is a 1 wire comms, and maybe that second propeller is simply an address clock for an sram chip. Applications would be for dumping data quickly out to the touchscreen and also for fast ram access for Propeller C and for Zicog. So in that instance, you can have a common core of two propeller chips and one sram chip and use it for several things. Then there is bidirectional serial using 2 wires, and you can use 4 wires with an SPI master/slave, and then an 8 bit bus, and 8 bit with control bits. So there are all sorts of combinations and because the propeller does so much in software this allows a lot of flexibility. There could be a PCB and you could have a 12x2 header and that joins P0 to P11 using jumpers with as many or as few pins as you like.
I've got this half completed design in my head with two propeller chips and one sram chip. It could have applications for several of the "top 10" on this thread.
In the early 80's I connected two single chip micros (MC68705P3S) together with 10 IO pins. 8 were used as a data byte, and one each for req/ack each way.
I've got this half completed design in my head with two propeller chips and one sram chip. It could have applications for several of the "top 10" on this thread.
You can also get dual-port sram chips from Cypress and elsewhere - they're designed for this kind of thing!...
... I am still super annoyed from over the years that the P2 was spoilt by so many cooks in the kitchen who didn't exercise enough self-control to say their bit and back off and let Chip finish P2 before going on to the next generation.
You must be joking. The P2 is a Parallax project, and the success and/or failure is entirely the responsibility of Parallax. Parallax is a business. Their future existence depends on producing the P2. It is the responsibility of Parallax to direct the P2 project. I doubt if Ken or Chip are blaming the delay of the P2 on having "so may cooks in the kitchen who didn't exercise enough self-control".
You must be joking. The P2 is a Parallax project, and the success and/or failure is entirely the responsibility of Parallax. Parallax is a business. Their future existence depends on producing the P2. It is the responsibility of Parallax to direct the P2 project. I doubt if Ken or Chip are blaming the delay of the P2 on having "so may cooks in the kitchen who didn't exercise enough self-control".
You know yourself if you followed the hectic pace of the forum posts that improvements and suggestions were being made day to day. Nobody could really keep track of it as posts got buried in posts almost immediately. Chip and everyone got carried away by the euphoria just like he'd been drugged. Many of us know what that's like but that is why Ken has Chip tucked away in rehab now, to dry out and get some work done
There were a few of us grumbling at the time but we were well and truly shouted down "but this will make a better chip" when all we were saying is "just make it "
Look, I'm really really hoping for a P2 like yesterday. I have been putting off the commercial projects I can put off, other ones have passed me by. I WANT SILICON , I WANT SILICON....
In all fairness, I do not believe that was his point. I think he was trying to say that if the opinions and suggestions from the forum members did not maintain momentum, then perhaps we might already have a P2 chip to play with. Suggestions and opinions produce new ideas, and if these new ideas are acted upon, it will most certainly cause a delay.
I cheekily point out that we've tried both the public soup kitchen approach, and leaving Chip well-alone approach, and neither have (so far) proven to result in P2 silicon materializing. Its all tied up at 0-0
Comments
If you bother to do a search you will see that there are many Tachyon related threads, mostly to do with specific hardware or even the recent Hardware Explorer as well as the IoT5500 Ethernet modules etc. There is a lot of software and hardware and applications too that have been published but I wonder why you feel it necessary to minimize Tachyon's position by attributing this to a "clever" channelling through one thread? Do you begrudge me? Perhaps I shouldn't be so "clever" and not publish.
Also, why would anyone be happy with the volume of P2 threads (a planned Parallax product vs contributor's thread) considering that we haven't even sniffed a P2 yet after all these years?
I do agree, it seems there was far too much P2 debate that did not lead anywhere. A communal mass debate, if you see what I mean.
Ah perhaps then, only "happy" though that the P2 threads accounted for more.....whatever that means.....ah it's late/early....time for forty winks.
That sounds high in pin cost, so useful for tightly coupled Props, but less useful for general IO.
A General IO expansion library should be general enough talk to a Prop, or other slaves, and should also be able to talk to a RaspPi serial.
From what I've seen RasPi can go up to 4MBd (with some caveats) and there is a good UART summary here
http://lavalink.com/2012/04/more-on-raspberry-pi-serial-ports/
Seems 4MBd would be reliable with HW handshake implemented.
9-bit UART support looks rather thin on RaspPi
The Tachyon thread has been around for 31 months with an average view rate of 6,500 views/month. The "P2 Blog" thread was around for 43 months, and had an average view rate of 15,000 views per month. The "New 16-Cog" thread has been alive for 10 months with an average view rate of 17,000 views per month.
Some of the other shorter lived threads have probably had even higher monthly view rates. I think Parallax would be in real trouble if the most popular threads were focused on Forth.
Ah, but think of how productive we'd be and how much fun we would have!
Tachyon thread "productivity" vs P2 thread - no contest
Now that seems like a harsh dig but I am still super annoyed from over the years that the P2 was spoilt by so many cooks in the kitchen who didn't exercise enough self-control to say their bit and back off and let Chip finish P2 before going on to the next generation. Now the best technology that Parallax has is almost a decade old and all that input would have been good for P3 while we could sit down to enjoy P2 in the meantime.
Interesting thoughts there. I can see some different designs for different applications. The first example would be a "no wire" interface because you use the I2C bus and because this is already used for eeprom it doesn't use any additional pins. Then therel is a 1 wire comms, and maybe that second propeller is simply an address clock for an sram chip. Applications would be for dumping data quickly out to the touchscreen and also for fast ram access for Propeller C and for Zicog. So in that instance, you can have a common core of two propeller chips and one sram chip and use it for several things. Then there is bidirectional serial using 2 wires, and you can use 4 wires with an SPI master/slave, and then an 8 bit bus, and 8 bit with control bits. So there are all sorts of combinations and because the propeller does so much in software this allows a lot of flexibility. There could be a PCB and you could have a 12x2 header and that joins P0 to P11 using jumpers with as many or as few pins as you like.
I've got this half completed design in my head with two propeller chips and one sram chip. It could have applications for several of the "top 10" on this thread.
As for Tachyon. No excuse really except for time. Would you build me a 6.5MHz binary for the debug version thread please?
My office is bedroom to our youngest visitors - twin 10mth old boys who have been here for 5 of 8 weeks visiting during the cold of S.Korea. So most of my goodies are packed away.
You can also get dual-port sram chips from Cypress and elsewhere - they're designed for this kind of thing!...
You know yourself if you followed the hectic pace of the forum posts that improvements and suggestions were being made day to day. Nobody could really keep track of it as posts got buried in posts almost immediately. Chip and everyone got carried away by the euphoria just like he'd been drugged. Many of us know what that's like but that is why Ken has Chip tucked away in rehab now, to dry out and get some work done
There were a few of us grumbling at the time but we were well and truly shouted down "but this will make a better chip" when all we were saying is "just make it "
Look, I'm really really hoping for a P2 like yesterday. I have been putting off the commercial projects I can put off, other ones have passed me by. I WANT SILICON , I WANT SILICON....
In all fairness, I do not believe that was his point. I think he was trying to say that if the opinions and suggestions from the forum members did not maintain momentum, then perhaps we might already have a P2 chip to play with. Suggestions and opinions produce new ideas, and if these new ideas are acted upon, it will most certainly cause a delay.