Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
How a Basic Stamp Could Be Way Cooler! — Parallax Forums

How a Basic Stamp Could Be Way Cooler!

microcontrollerusermicrocontrolleruser Posts: 1,194
in BASIC Stamp

Have a compiler where you can either use PBasic or PIC assembler.

Exactly like the SX.Assembler or SX/B.

Comments

  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,185
    microcontrolleruser wrote: »
    Have a compiler where you can either use PBasic or PIC assembler.

    Exactly like the SX.Assembler or SX/B.

    What about a Stamp that can run Basic, Assembler, Forth, C, bytecode languages, and Blocky ?

    It's called FLiP :)


  • AwesomeCronkAwesomeCronk Posts: 1,055
    Isn't a Stamp just a PIC(Interpreter), Memory, Clock, and other external components?
  • microcontrollerusermicrocontrolleruser Posts: 1,194
    edited 2018-04-29 21:37
    'Isn't a Stamp just a PIC(Interpreter), Memory, Clock, and other external components? '

    Yes it is.

    The SX28 and SX48 are programmable in assembler.

    That gives you access to the hardware and you learn about the hardware.

    The SX assembler takes a commitment of months and years to learn.
  • microcontrollerusermicrocontrolleruser Posts: 1,194

    'What about a Stamp that can run Basic, Assembler, Forth, C, bytecode languages, and Blocky ?

    It's called FLiP'

    That's a great way to learn programming on the language side.

  • Mike GreenMike Green Posts: 23,101
    The SX (and PIC) microcontrollers are poor places to start to learn about instruction sets and programming in assembly language. The instructions have a lot of special cases. The hardware (peripheral units) are often buggy with too many work arounds needed. I would stay away from the SX series ... they're at "end of life" and, once the current stock is used to make Stamps, there'll be no more.

  • DigitalBobDigitalBob Posts: 1,515
    You could alway buy some pic16f57 chips for .80-.90 cents each and program them with MPLAB-X C+++. But without the cool bs2 code and accessories developed over the years.
  • microcontrollerusermicrocontrolleruser Posts: 1,194
    edited 2018-04-30 03:11

    The major point is for Parallax to make a compiler.

    Flexibility to support different chips.

    Different languages.

    They wrote a compiler for SX and then 'Poof!'. No more.
  • Mike GreenMike Green Posts: 23,101
    edited 2018-04-30 03:50
    There already exists compilers for all sorts of chips including the PIC16F57. Other people have written them and they cost money to get. Parallax has to generate the income to pay for things they provide. The Spin compiler/assembler was paid for from anticipated income from Propeller-based products. The Propeller IDE and Simple IDE were partly contributed by interested users and partly from anticipated sales of Propeller-based products. There's no equivalent anymore for SX products ... They're obsolete!!! ... some are still in use and Parallax still has stock on hand of SX chips, but no more will ever be made. Are you willing to pay to have someone write a compiler for the SX? How much is it worth to you? How many others do you think will pay for such a compiler? Parallax is focused on the Propeller 1 and soon the Propeller 2. Any programming resources will be focused on those two products. The major point is for Parallax to finish the implementation of the Propeller 2 including the documentation and the compiler changes to support it along with the existing support for the Propeller 1.
  • microcontrollerusermicrocontrolleruser Posts: 1,194
    edited 2018-04-30 16:52

    Okay.

    Parallax equals Propeller.

    Good to know.

    Thanks.

  • Mike GreenMike Green Posts: 23,101
    Parallax is using what development resources it has on the Propeller, so it is actively supporting only one current micro controller (Propeller 1) and one under development (Propeller 2).

    There is no active support for the SX and minimal support for the Stamps and this has been true for several years now. Why should Parallax devote any resources to the PICs? For that matter, why should Parallax devote any more resources to the Basic Stamps? What customer would create a new product or educational program based on the Basic Stamps? There are only so many SX chips available and more cannot be made. The BS2, based on the PIC16F56, could be obsoleted by Microchip at any time. Parallax’s future lies with its Propeller which, in the educational market, is being supported with existing C, C++, and BlocklyProp compilers.
  • microcontrollerusermicrocontrolleruser Posts: 1,194

    Okay.

    Will do some Propeller experiments to be fair about this.

    Thanks.

  • Mike GreenMike Green Posts: 23,101
    Do have a look at Tachyon Forth. It's amazing what Peter Jakacki has been able to do with it using a Propeller 1.
  • microcontrollerusermicrocontrolleruser Posts: 1,194

    Will take a look at it.

    Probably stick with Spin and assemblr.

  • KotobukiKotobuki Posts: 82
    It would be nice for Parallax to continue to support and develop curricula for the BS-2. It is easy to learn, easy to design with, and is powerful without being overly complex. Lets say that someone was designing a small cubesat to do one or two things in orbit. Maybe measure Gamma flux of a given energy. Would you want to use a very complex microprocessor that took thousands of lines of code, or a micro- controller that took twenty five lines of code to do the same thing? Just by its simplicity, the micro-controller would be more reliable. When I say simple, I mean for example, take measurement, record time of measurement, record to storage, repeat, when command received, dump measurement to transmitter. That is it. Of course neither a regular BS-2 or Propeller could be used as they are not radiation hardened. This is just a "what if". But I think that it makes a point.

    Best,

    J
  • David BetzDavid Betz Posts: 14,516
    Kotobuki wrote: »
    It would be nice for Parallax to continue to support and develop curricula for the BS-2. It is easy to learn, easy to design with, and is powerful without being overly complex. Lets say that someone was designing a small cubesat to do one or two things in orbit. Maybe measure Gamma flux of a given energy. Would you want to use a very complex microprocessor that took thousands of lines of code, or a micro- controller that took twenty five lines of code to do the same thing? Just by its simplicity, the micro-controller would be more reliable. When I say simple, I mean for example, take measurement, record time of measurement, record to storage, repeat, when command received, dump measurement to transmitter. That is it. Of course neither a regular BS-2 or Propeller could be used as they are not radiation hardened. This is just a "what if". But I think that it makes a point.

    Best,

    J
    I think Parallax's current solution for an easy to learn and easy to design with language is BlocklyProp.
  • GenetixGenetix Posts: 1,758
    I wish Parallax would incorporate all the old BS2 texts for the Propeller.

    There was a half-finished version of WAM for the Propeller, called "What's a Multicore Microcontroller?".
  • microcontrollerusermicrocontrolleruser Posts: 1,194

    There's PE Kit Text lessons for sure.

    Then Learn Propeller Spin and C lessons.

    They cover a whole bunch.
  • jmgjmg Posts: 15,185
    David Betz wrote: »
    I think Parallax's current solution for an easy to learn and easy to design with language is BlocklyProp.

    yes, and then there is PropBASIC and also this

  • twm47099twm47099 Posts: 867
    After going through the Propeller Education Kit book there is a pdf on the Parallax site by Jon Titus that gets into more electronics basics and interfacing with the propeller: "Experiments for the Propeller QuickStart" along with with a file of the Spin code used.
    https://parallax.com/downloads/experiments-propeller-quickstart-text
    and
    https://parallax.com/downloads/experiments-propeller-quickstart-code

    Table of contents below.
    Tom

    TOC.jpg
    TOC.jpg
    2302 x 1871 - 894K
    TOC.jpg 893.7K
Sign In or Register to comment.