Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
A suggestion for a future BASIC Stamp — Parallax Forums

A suggestion for a future BASIC Stamp

I put together a proof of concept version of an ARM based BASIC Stamp. It used a modified version of the Propeller IDE, and includes both C and BASIC compilers. A few of these went to Parallax for evaluation, and there are a number left over. Ken granted me permission to give those away here. This will help flesh out the concept and be a beta test.

So what is it? --
LPC11U37 ARM controller 50 Mhz ARM CPU
Stamp form factor an pin compatible
Qt based IDE -- should be portable to Linux, Mac Unix, and Android
BASIC compiler
GCC compiler (C++ support possible)
128K Flash
10K SRAM
4K EEPROM
USB serial builtin
8 10bit A/D
upto 40 IOs (17 used on Stamp with 2 additional for serial

So this is a proof of concept, which means a bit rough around the edges, but generally is ready for use. The Qt tools can be downloaded from eisenhard.net/files/Cbasic.zip An installer was not built, just download that zip and install at the root, ie. C:/Cbasic

These tools are for Windows, but others could be built for other systems.

Drop me a line through the forum here if you would like to get a board to play with.
«134

Comments

  • PublisonPublison Posts: 12,366
    edited 2016-01-07 20:42
    NOTE FROM MODERATOR: This is not SPAM and has been authorised by Ken.
  • So I can plug this into my Stampworks Professional Development Board? Program just the same except a different IDE? Run all my BS-2 stuff except way faster?
  • This is a proof of concept. The Stamps have a lot of non-standard Basic statements, mostly for specialized I/O and I doubt that brucee has added those to the Basic compiler he's using. It should be straightforward to add them, but it'll take some work and time (and a lot of discussion on strict compatibility vs. using the power of an ARM processor and its peripherals). For a start, should this be object compatible vs. just source compatible?
  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,175
    edited 2016-01-07 23:23
    brucee wrote: »
    So this is a proof of concept, which means a bit rough around the edges, but generally is ready for use.

    The concept and general approach sounds great :)

    The only detail I would change is to select a 5V capable ARM, (not just 5V tolerant) so this can be backward compatible into 5V systems.

    There are an expanding number of 5V ARMs to choose from.

    For this sort of use, I'd lean more toward better speed and performance, than "save the last 10c".
    ie 10b ADC and 10k RAM is at the rather low-spec end.

    One example is Nuvoton M452, adds 12b DAC, 12b DAC, 2.5~5.5V Vcc and 1.8-5.5V io, with ROM loader and is a Cortex M4.

    M452 is new, but eval boards I think are avail and sub US$20 - links from here

    http://www.nuvoton.com/hq/support/tool-and-software/development-tool-hardware/development-kit/?__locale=en

    Nuvoton publish the PCB files, so you can morph to any form factor.

    Board uses M453VG6AE, family superset device with

    256kF
    32kR
    80io
    4 timer
    4+1 Uart
    1 ISO7816
    3 SPI
    2 i2c
    1 Can
    2 LIN
    2 i2s
    USB: OTG
    PWM: 12
    Comp: 2
    DAC: 12b x 1
    ADC: 12b x 16-ch
    Cap: 16
    RTC
    Bootloader
    LQFP 100

    and also see http://coocox.org/index.html

    Addit: I see Avnet show good stocks of 64pin
    Avnet M453RE6AE - 10000 stock 250 $2.46

    Seems similar price, or lower, than the LPC11U6x, which would replace the older LPC11U3x

  • The BASIC dialect we compile is closer to Visual BASIC or some other BASICs. I believe there is a standard, though I don't think anyone pays attention to it.

    What that means is
    FREQOUT 10,200,300    ' in PBASIC
    FREQOUT(10,200,300)   ' in this version
    

    FREQOUT is not a builtin word, but is written as a library that can be included. The BASIC takes advantage of C Pre-Processor, to handle libraries.

    One route to go would be to do a PBASIC -> BASIC preprocessor to port old code. This could be done with some sed like scripts.

    Jus so we are on the same page here is a picture, and it does maintain the Stamp pinout, but debug is through the USB serial port
    Cbasic.jpg
  • bruceebrucee Posts: 239
    edited 2016-01-08 00:19
    After reading a mail message or 2. Yes this is not SPAM, this will be not be a product except through Parallax if they decide it makes sense. And yes I am willing to give away the prototypes I built, so I don't take PayPal.
  • brucee wrote: »
    The BASIC dialect we compile is closer to Visual BASIC or some other BASICs. I believe there is a standard, though I don't think anyone pays attention to it.

    What that means is
    FREQOUT 10,200,300    ' in PBASIC
    FREQOUT(10,200,300)   ' in this version
    

    FREQOUT is not a builtin word, but is written as a library that can be included. The BASIC takes advantage of C Pre-Processor, to handle libraries.

    One route to go would be to do a PBASIC -> BASIC preprocessor to port old code. This could be done with some sed like scripts.

    Jus so we are on the same page here is a picture, and it does maintain the Stamp pinout, but debug is through the USB serial port
    Cbasic.jpg
    Are you planning to put a BASIC compiler in the flash on this chip or will it only be PC hosted? It seems like there is enough space on the ARM chip to put at least a simple BASIC compiler. Might be nice to be able to program it by just connecting a USB cable and running a terminal emulator on the PC.

  • While the BASIC compiler could be self-hosted, and it actually grew out of a diagnostic tool running on ARMs, that is not our intention. My opinion is that if your editor and file system lives on a PC/phone/tablet, why not the compiler too.

    This compiler is written in C for MinGW, and has already been compiled to Mac and Linux. With a Qt GUI front end could run on multiple platforms.
  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,175
    brucee wrote: »
    While the BASIC compiler could be self-hosted, and it actually grew out of a diagnostic tool running on ARMs, that is not our intention....
    This compiler is written in C for MinGW, and has already been compiled to Mac and Linux.

    What code size is this on eg an ARM core ?
    Looking ahead to P2, collecting numbers...

  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,175
    David Betz wrote: »
    Are you planning to put a BASIC compiler in the flash on this chip or will it only be PC hosted? It seems like there is enough space on the ARM chip to put at least a simple BASIC compiler. Might be nice to be able to program it by just connecting a USB cable and running a terminal emulator on the PC.

    I can see a place for a BASIC interpreter more than a compiler.
    On a part with moderate RAM, there should be ample code room to include a BASIC interpreter that at least matches the old Stamp.
    Maybe even with a Slow_Down switch to (optionally) broadly match the Stamp speed ?

    A 'full blown compiler' on a MCU is always going to be compromised, and the resource is better placed into a better debug for example.
  • jmg wrote: »
    David Betz wrote: »
    Are you planning to put a BASIC compiler in the flash on this chip or will it only be PC hosted? It seems like there is enough space on the ARM chip to put at least a simple BASIC compiler. Might be nice to be able to program it by just connecting a USB cable and running a terminal emulator on the PC.

    I can see a place for a BASIC interpreter more than a compiler.
    On a part with moderate RAM, there should be ample code room to include a BASIC interpreter that at least matches the old Stamp.
    Maybe even with a Slow_Down switch to (optionally) broadly match the Stamp speed ?

    A 'full blown compiler' on a MCU is always going to be compromised, and the resource is better placed into a better debug for example.
    You'd probably want any on-board compiler to be interactive. You'd want to be able to type statements or even expressions and have them evaluated immediately. I'd have to look closely at PBASIC to see if it would lend itself to interactive use. I don't imagine it was designed with that in mind.

  • The compiler is about 40K in ARM7 code, and a bit less in Thumb code.
  • brucee wrote: »
    The compiler is about 40K in ARM7 code, and a bit less in Thumb code.
    Is this an open source compiler? Is the source available in github or somewhere?

  • bruceebrucee Posts: 239
    edited 2016-01-08 02:31
    No this is not an open source compiler. While not invulnerable there is a firmware code that includes subroutines (like printf, divide ...) and a bootloader that can be read protected.
  • Is it possible to change the code that resides in the flash on your modules? Can I program my own BASIC interpreter into it?
  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,175
    David Betz wrote: »
    You'd probably want any on-board compiler to be interactive. You'd want to be able to type statements or even expressions and have them evaluated immediately.

    Can't a BASIC interpreter do that ?
    A compiler is less interactive, because you have to do the compile step before you can run, and that also infers something of a mini file system to manage the compiled output.

    A BASIC interpreter that does something like a JIT Tokenize could give better run-time speeds, but that's not quite a full compiler.

    Something like Turbo Pascal would be nice, where you can Source Step, and Compile is very fast, but I think that is pushing mid-range ARMs too much.

    I did see this news item :
    http://www10.edacafe.com/nbc/articles/1/1397590/Toshiba-Expands-Line-up-ApP-Lite-Processor-Family-Wearable-Applications
    Looks to be a 8mm BGA, with 2.2MB of RAM
    (but that's not going to be 5V operating)
  • How important is it to be 5V capable? Aren't there 3.3v versions of most sensors these days?
  • While not implemented in the Qt GUI (yet), the BASIC compiler also runs an emulation mode on the PC, so you can type a few lines of BASIC and run it there. This gives you the feel of an interpreter. There is also an onboard monitor so the ARM can query or set registers, which is very useful in debugging peripheral code.
  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,175
    brucee wrote: »
    The compiler is about 40K in ARM7 code, and a bit less in Thumb code.
    Interesting, that could be useful for P2 testing.
    How much RAM does it need, and besides the Source Code, and output Binary, what other working resource does it need ?
    Does that 40k include any Debug support, or is it compile-and-hope ?

  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,175
    David Betz wrote: »
    How important is it to be 5V capable? Aren't there 3.3v versions of most sensors these days?
    This type of product looks to replace existing Stamps,
    and the Arduino market place is suffering from 3v versions that cannot tolerate 5V shields.
    Smarter to avoid that minefield entirely, and there is no need to be 3V constrained these days - see the above Cortex M4 chip that can do 5V operation.
    5V also gives you 5V ADC, 5V DAC and direct gate drive to Logic level Power FETS

  • jmg wrote: »
    David Betz wrote: »
    How important is it to be 5V capable? Aren't there 3.3v versions of most sensors these days?
    This type of product looks to replace existing Stamps,
    and the Arduino market place is suffering from 3v versions that cannot tolerate 5V shields.
    Smarter to avoid that minefield entirely, and there is no need to be 3V constrained these days - see the above Cortex M4 chip that can do 5V operation.
    5V also gives you 5V ADC, 5V DAC and direct gate drive to Logic level Power FETS
    Yeah, I guess lack of 5V compatiblity may be what killed the old Spin Stamp module. I always thought that could be made to run PBASIC in a COG. Unfortunately, it's now discontinued.

  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,175
    David Betz wrote: »
    Is it possible to change the code that resides in the flash on your modules? Can I program my own BASIC interpreter into it?

    You can always replace the code in any flash device, but that means clobbering what was there.
    If you want to co-exist with someones close-source firmware, that's going to be trickier.

  • jmg wrote: »
    David Betz wrote: »
    Is it possible to change the code that resides in the flash on your modules? Can I program my own BASIC interpreter into it?

    You can always replace the code in any flash device, but that means clobbering what was there.
    If you want to co-exist with someones close-source firmware, that's going to be trickier.
    It's usually possible to lock flash to prevent it from being overwritten. I was wondering if that had been done in these modules.

  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,175
    David Betz wrote: »
    It's usually possible to lock flash to prevent it from being overwritten. I was wondering if that had been done in these modules.

    I took the comment above
    http://forums.parallax.com/discussion/comment/1361389/#Comment_1361389
    to mean that had been done.
    That lock likely includes the interrupt vector areas, which limits what you can add into any spare space.

  • Mike GreenMike Green Posts: 23,101
    edited 2016-01-08 03:50
    Running the Basic compiler locally on the PC doesn't help much unless you emulate the I/O somehow on the PC or have a debugger on the Stamp that talks to the PC to actually do the I/O while the program is running on the PC.

    As jmg noted, 5V compatibility is crucial if you want to replace Stamps with this. Without 5V compatibility, you might as well use a Propeller. An interpreter for PBasic would not be hard to do if Parallax would make the BS2 interpretive code format available to an interested developer. Still, such a device wouldn't be hardware compatible.

    You really want to have the initial Basic implementation look as close to identical to the existing Stamp Editor as possible so existing programs can be compiled "as is" or at least with no more parameterization than already exists among the various Stamp models. There's an awful lot of existing code and educational materials that would have to be changed otherwise.
  • The IOs are all 5V tolerant, something missing in the P1. The P1 would clamp any voltage above 3.3V, which in many cases would eventually harm the IO.

    Most ARM vendors IOs are 5V tolerant which means they will not clamp an output at 3.3V. Most TTL really runs with a 2.6V threshold so those are not an issue. Some power MOSFETs do require higher than 3.3V, but that can be accomplished with a pullup, something the P1 can not do.

    The existing code base is an issue, but I think can be addressed with a PBASIC translation, you could keep it always running in that mode, but then you would give up parameterized functions and subroutines, floating point, and other things.
  • Dave- the Flash is not locked, and these modules are compatible with mbed tools, basically, short pins 3 and 4 during reset and the device comes up looking like a disk to the PC, which you can load your code onto.
  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,175
    Mike Green wrote: »
    An interpreter for PBasic would not be hard to do if Parallax would make the BS2 interpretive code format available to an interested developer.

    Hehe, one could even emulate the PIC using the ARM ;)

    but more practical would be to remove the serial memory, and use RAM / Emulated EEPROM - DataFlash to host the code, with the code re-written for ARM.

    There would be place for 3+ modes

    * Emulate existing code, including Timing
    * Run existing code faster & with more Data
    + maybe extended data types
    * Run PC compiled code, more options, more vars
    and faster again.

    Using the Spin2Cpp, this could also host Spin sources...

  • "existing code base": This is where you have to have a clear vision of the market you want to serve. A primarily educational market will not tolerate much deviation from existing tools. Commercial users will tolerate a bit more if the compatibility is there.
  • Oddly enough the Netduino Mini was originally sold from Secret Labs at www.netduino.com which they say was marketed to users of the BS2. As to why I bought it, I find they are easier to program then the A***** crowd.

    However it is difficult to find.

    Brucee I welcome your efforts.
Sign In or Register to comment.