Maybe we are stumbling onto something Parallax can do. When the BASIC Stamp was introduced, microcontrollers were not easy to use, or had expensive tools or other barriers for the hobbyist, educator or low volume user. Those days are long gone as single parts can handle the market covered by the BASIC Stamp have free tools and cost at most a couple dollars.
Today FPGAs are coming down in price, but tools while mostly free are beyond what many hobbyists, educators or low volume users can handle.
So rather than re-inventing the micro wheel, which has taken over 12 years, millions of dollars, and is still years away. How about a combination module with an ARM and an FPGA. Program the FPGA and ARM in Blocky, which is suppose to be oriented towards parallelism?
...
'Back to erase-burn-plug-pray-repeat. The Parallax Downloader used a special PIC bond-out chip and was the first tool available that allowed code to be run in RAM'
That is the last thing I'm posting about Parallax from 20 years ago.
That was pre internet. It only exists in old timer's memory.
Manuals and hardware have been tossed a long time ago.
Yes, that "a long time ago" is key here.
It has been a very long time since anyone developed with an OTP micro, so such history has no bearing on 2017 decisions.
Err no, your own example proves they were experts at PICs, way, way back in OTP development days !!
The "PICs" that they were experts in, way back, have been since replaced with different MCUs/cores more suited to new designs.
The cheapest Microchip parts, are now labeled "ATTINY"
Once "PICs: do appear, many are 14b opcode parts (not the 12b opcode parts of good ol' PIC16C57 days), then there are new cores like PIC18 and PIC24 / dsPIC ...
They chose not to participate because:
Most likely they are afraid of taking a beating in today's competition.
Yup, note that's just another way of saying exactly what you have already been told, many times :
That is makes no commercial sense to do so, for Parallax.
What is this "real"programming of which you speak?
And why do you limit it to assembler and C?
Was I doing it wrong back in the day when we entered instructions into a computer in binary by tweaking toggle switches on the front panel?
Or later when we entered instructions in hexadecimal into an EPROM programmer for those new fangled microprocessors?
Am I doing it wrong today when I get a web browser to download and run my Javascript programs? Or use Verilog to get my FPGA to do something interesting?
Heck, the young "real programmers" today are are desperately trying to figure out how to get quantum computers to do what they want.
Comments
Today FPGAs are coming down in price, but tools while mostly free are beyond what many hobbyists, educators or low volume users can handle.
So rather than re-inventing the micro wheel, which has taken over 12 years, millions of dollars, and is still years away. How about a combination module with an ARM and an FPGA. Program the FPGA and ARM in Blocky, which is suppose to be oriented towards parallelism?
Yes, that "a long time ago" is key here.
It has been a very long time since anyone developed with an OTP micro, so such history has no bearing on 2017 decisions.
JMG
'no bearing on 2017 decisions.'
Au contraire.
Parallax are experts at PIC's.
They chose not to participate because:
Most likely they are afraid of taking a beating in today's competition.
Remember it usually does not hurt as much as you think it's going to.
What they need to do is make the first compiler with ADJUSTABLE macro's.
It can be a C compiler. You start out and it is all sugar coated.
As you go along you can start it up at different levels until it ends up like the big boys one.
An industry first!
Parallax has the know how to do it.
Err no, your own example proves they were experts at PICs, way, way back in OTP development days !!
The "PICs" that they were experts in, way back, have been since replaced with different MCUs/cores more suited to new designs.
The cheapest Microchip parts, are now labeled "ATTINY"
Once "PICs: do appear, many are 14b opcode parts (not the 12b opcode parts of good ol' PIC16C57 days), then there are new cores like PIC18 and PIC24 / dsPIC ...
Yup, note that's just another way of saying exactly what you have already been told, many times :
That is makes no commercial sense to do so, for Parallax.
Oh goody, another totally new direction of thought....
Whatever can "first compiler with ADJUSTABLE macro's" actually mean ??
JMG
'ADJUSTABLE macro's'
Levels of complexity. Beginner's level setting on new complier has
mega commands. That cover up the complexities.
Advanced level is comparable to XC8 compiler. No mega commands or macros.
All in one compiler.
Parallax PIC Learning System.
I like it!
Probably better to make it three separate compiler/ide's.
Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced.
Could use a different device default bootloader for each one. For lessons but have support for a range of devices.
Use a different default device for each compiler. Say 18F, 24F and a 32MX.
Parallax better hurry up before somebody beats them to it!:)
Ever heard of ARDUINO ?
There's a method to the madness here.
I am trying to distill out exactly what Parallax is doing with the Stamp and the Propellor.
I will say Microchip and Atmel has taken a page out of Parallax's book and come out with similar systems.
Atmel has the Xplained kits and Microhip has the Curiousity boards.
They bypass the configuration phase of setting up the chips.
That would drive newcomers away in droves.
Big difference though is after you get past that you have access to 'real' programming in
Assembler and C.
Parallax's one and only foray into that was the SX Ubicom.
And why do you limit it to assembler and C?
Was I doing it wrong back in the day when we entered instructions into a computer in binary by tweaking toggle switches on the front panel?
Or later when we entered instructions in hexadecimal into an EPROM programmer for those new fangled microprocessors?
Am I doing it wrong today when I get a web browser to download and run my Javascript programs? Or use Verilog to get my FPGA to do something interesting?
Heck, the young "real programmers" today are are desperately trying to figure out how to get quantum computers to do what they want.
Heater
This is an old post.
No more crusading for me for a while.
Okay. You win.
Arranging pebbles in the sand can be programming.
I'm busy doing little Stamp and Propeller experiments.