Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Stamp wish list — Parallax Forums

Stamp wish list

ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
edited 2000-05-04 20:15 in General Discussion
Adding to the wish list for a modern stamp
1) real time clock
2) interrupts
3) more memory
4) larger variable space (the stamp IIsx does NOT fit the bill for these)
5) Dallas 1 wire compatibilty
6) natch,you can never have to much speed
7) PLEASE STAY WITH BASIC as a programming language
I dont see the small footprint of a stamp as a real selling pt.Possibly
increasing its overall size by a small amount to add many more features
would not be to bad.I cant imagine anyone even in industry actually needing
such a tiny footprint,not after they use the 16 IO lines etc etc etc
increasing overall circuit size anyhow.
Sincerely
Kerry
Admin@M...
WWW server hosting
[url=Http://mntnweb.com]Http://mntnweb.com[/url]
Binghamton online Webcam [url=Http://MntnWeb.Com/bing.htm]Http://MntnWeb.Com/bing.htm[/url]
CHRISTMAS Web Page [url=Http://mntnweb.com/xmas.htm]Http://mntnweb.com/xmas.htm[/url]
«1

Comments

  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-03 20:03
    How about building a stamp around the Scenix SX52BD100 or SX48BD100?
    100 Mhz, 40(36) I/O ports, 256 bytes of memory, 4K x 12 EEPROM,
    multiple timers. Except for somewhat limited memory, with the right
    on-board software, it should blow the doors off the existing "chips".
    Add a fast external 32K (or more) EEPROM, and you have a pretty heavy
    duty "stamp" (well, maybe it's a little larger). Put it on a 40 pin
    x .6 inch board so it still fits into a standard socket.

    Other wants:

    Multiple, Real RS232/RS485 communication (full duplex, running
    simultaneously with other functions)
    Multi-tasking (a problem with limited memory, but even one additional
    task would be nice.)
    Compiler with real functions and subroutines (PLEASE!)
    Option to have compiled code loaded into memory instead of (or along
    with) the interpreter - now you have some really serious speed
    capabilities. There's only 4K of memory, but you could modularize the
    interpreter so only the parts you use are loaded (does anyone use all
    100+ PBASIC functions?), leaving the rest of the space for user code.

    Chuck Davis
    Oak Tree Systems LLC
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-03 20:19
    Good afternoon,

    Aside from some of what has already been mentioned, perhaps an
    addition of new commands might be in order. Software is easier to
    change/develop, sometimes, than hardware.

    Just two examples:

    I often find I'd like to use RCtime with a single command, where
    bringing pins high and low, with pauses, is clumsy.
    A possibility: define an rctime comparator. With pin 3, rc3 would
    return a 1 if the rctime value is greater than a predetermined value, and
    0 if not. I can simply define this threshold, rc3 xxxx 130, then use rc3
    in any branch command, etc. All normal rctime functions are automatically
    incorporated into this call.

    Also, real if-then statments would come well. That is, not having
    to branch on a condition; actual if-then-else-end are a need of many, I
    believe.

    Thanks for your time, have a nice afternoon.
    Paul
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-03 20:27
    Mostly I agree with these statements, but...


    > 7) PLEASE STAY WITH BASIC as a programming language

    Argh! Stamp's basic implementation is an irrevocably crippled
    implementation of an irrevocably crippled language! Anyone with any kind
    of software background who has used the stamp knows this. I had thought
    about dumping the stamp and using a PIC, just because I thought that pic
    assembler might give me more control over what I'm doing.

    Case in point - as far as I know you can't do the following

    if (pin0 is high)
    function1();
    else
    function2();

    This is a really basic control structure, and as far as I can tell, you
    can't do it in pbasic. I'd love to see a stamp running C, C++, pascal,
    ADA, perl, prolog, lisp, cobol, eiffel, python,php4, or a better version
    of basic.



    Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
    Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
    email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-03 20:33
    I am sure you will be bombarded with answers to this, but here goes.

    I use the stamp *because* it is BASIC. If I wanted to develop in C or asm I
    would use a PIC (and do, sometimes). The BASIC stamp lets me get my
    prototypes up and running *now*, not later.

    Anyways, to do what you want in PBASIC use the following code snippet:

    if in0=1 then goto function1

    function2:
    (function 2 code)
    goto endsnippet

    function1:
    (function1 code)

    endsnippet:

    It's not as clean as some other BASICs, but it runs in a small amount of
    space, and it gets the job done.

    My $.02 CDN

    Kyle


    R. Kyle Schmidt
    Control System Specialist
    Messier-Dowty Inc. "The Landing Gear Company"
    kyle.schmidt@m...

    >
    Original Message
    > From: Sean T. Lamont .lost. [noparse]/noparse]SMTP:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=yP5TVoTbiPr5dGPsLwcRw_ErInl8RCr9cZIOy7C_mfmo8tQUDtCgoWwr0n0fIw5ZyZTBP1BHF33XDWxUGYk]lamont@a...[/url
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:28 PM
    > To: basicstamps@egroups.com
    > Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list
    >
    >
    > Mostly I agree with these statements, but...
    >
    >
    > > 7) PLEASE STAY WITH BASIC as a programming language
    >
    > Argh! Stamp's basic implementation is an irrevocably crippled
    > implementation of an irrevocably crippled language! Anyone with any kind
    > of software background who has used the stamp knows this. I had thought
    > about dumping the stamp and using a PIC, just because I thought that pic
    > assembler might give me more control over what I'm doing.
    >
    > Case in point - as far as I know you can't do the following
    >
    > if (pin0 is high)
    > function1();
    > else
    > function2();
    >
    > This is a really basic control structure, and as far as I can tell, you
    > can't do it in pbasic. I'd love to see a stamp running C, C++, pascal,
    > ADA, perl, prolog, lisp, cobol, eiffel, python,php4, or a better version
    > of basic.
    >
    >
    >
    > Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
    > Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
    > email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    > "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson
    >
    >
    >
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-03 20:43
    On Wed, 3 May 2000, Schmidt, Kyle wrote:

    > I am sure you will be bombarded with answers to this, but here goes.
    >
    > I use the stamp *because* it is BASIC. If I wanted to develop in C or asm I
    > would use a PIC (and do, sometimes). The BASIC stamp lets me get my
    > prototypes up and running *now*, not later.

    There are way easier prototyping languages. I spend half my time with
    parallax basic trying to work around the limitations of the language.

    > if in0=1 then goto function1
    >
    > function2:
    > (function 2 code)
    > goto endsnippet
    >
    > function1:
    > (function1 code)

    You missed my point. I didn't mean "is it possible to write a program
    which has the same functionality as X", I was speaking about a basic
    logical program flow. What if function1() and function2() are subroutines?
    It's _not_ possible. Not to mention the fact that for even a modest
    project, the spaghetti code factor goes through the roof. I could do this
    on the Commodore vic-20 in 1983, and to be fair, the stamp is a more
    powerful computer. They should have at least gotten the basic right. One
    very simple modification which would go a long way would be to allow gosub
    inside a conditional. This is just a sloppy oversight.


    Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
    Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
    email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-03 20:47
    I must agree that the given syntax makes it sometimes difficult to trace
    program flow. But what prototyping languages are out there that will run in
    the given space?

    The if structure is not intuitive, and I have had some of my employees make
    mistakes with it. But, you can put a gosub in where the function code would
    go. So, you are looking at five lines of code instead of three. It's not a
    big deal.

    I would like to see a case structure. I would also like to be able to
    program the stamp in LabVIEW, which is my favourite language, but since that
    is a little unreasonable, I don't expect to be able to do it. I choose a
    certain tool for a certain job.

    Now, if you are wondering whether Parallax could change PBASIC to permit
    better handling of conditional branching, you would have to ask them.

    In addition, I would contend that the VIC20 was a more powerful computer
    than the stamp. For one (very important thing), it had far more variable
    space. This alone made the implementation of complex branching possible.

    Kyle

    R. Kyle Schmidt
    Control System Specialist
    Messier-Dowty Inc. "The Landing Gear Company"
    kyle.schmidt@m...

    >
    Original Message
    > From: Sean T. Lamont .lost. [noparse]/noparse]SMTP:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=QhgxEFEAhl7wKqP9cEa5twkCRKuCHI6A_sRWP4vIEZHeiXtg4wClXNLVzXYvHrIqjNae-rU-9i8XGOb5XN8PLg]lamont@a...[/url
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:44 PM
    > To: 'basicstamps@egroups.com'
    > Subject: RE: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list
    >
    > On Wed, 3 May 2000, Schmidt, Kyle wrote:
    >
    > > I am sure you will be bombarded with answers to this, but here goes.
    > >
    > > I use the stamp *because* it is BASIC. If I wanted to develop in C or
    > asm I
    > > would use a PIC (and do, sometimes). The BASIC stamp lets me get my
    > > prototypes up and running *now*, not later.
    >
    > There are way easier prototyping languages. I spend half my time with
    > parallax basic trying to work around the limitations of the language.
    >
    > > if in0=1 then goto function1
    > >
    > > function2:
    > > (function 2 code)
    > > goto endsnippet
    > >
    > > function1:
    > > (function1 code)
    >
    > You missed my point. I didn't mean "is it possible to write a program
    > which has the same functionality as X", I was speaking about a basic
    > logical program flow. What if function1() and function2() are subroutines?
    > It's _not_ possible. Not to mention the fact that for even a modest
    > project, the spaghetti code factor goes through the roof. I could do this
    > on the Commodore vic-20 in 1983, and to be fair, the stamp is a more
    > powerful computer. They should have at least gotten the basic right. One
    > very simple modification which would go a long way would be to allow gosub
    > inside a conditional. This is just a sloppy oversight.
    >
    >
    > Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
    > Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
    > email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    > "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson
    >
    >
    >
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-03 20:49
    Hmmm, the stamp wish list,

    Well, here goes my list (not in any particular order of priority)
    Multitasking capability
    Internal A/D converter
    True If - Then - Else
    Interupt Capability
    SPI Communications
    I2C Communications
    Proper RS232 Communications (get rid of all those bloody timing delays
    between individual bytes sent. i.e. able to communicate with non stamp
    products)
    More than 2K Programming Space
    True Math Rules (i.e. follow the standard way of solving problems, not this
    strict left to right hand rule)
    Floating Point Capability
    Local Variables in Subroutines
    Multi-Dimensional Arrays
    The ability to send more than 8 characters out at one time in a serial
    command.
    Source more than 100 ma?
    Higher Math Functions, like sin, cos, tan, abs, log, ln, fix, sqrt, power,
    etc.
    Not having to deal with bank switching.
    Ability to mix Assembly with Basic
    Ability to be programmed with Windows NT4.0 that has a 32bit file system.

    Most improtantly, a compiled language, not an interpreted one. This way,
    different microprocessers can be programmed. I am not that particular
    between the PIC, SX, Atmel, or even the HC11. As long as it works.
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-03 21:20
    In a message dated 5/3/00 1:06:19 PM Central Daylight Time, admin@m...
    writes:

    > I dont see the small footprint of a stamp as a real selling point.

    Not so! A very big selling point of a recent product I developed is its
    small size. Using the Stamp 2 made it easy for me to develop the software
    and to keep the product size in check. I be thrilled with a Stamp 1 with
    more memory.

    -- Jon Williams
    -- Dallas, TX
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-03 21:26
    Actually you can do this with the Stamp, but if you're wanting to move
    to the PIC, try the PicBasic Compiler. It has real IF, THEN, ELSE
    commands.

    We carry the PicBasic Pro, and PicBasic Compilers at:
    http://www.rentron.com/PicBasic.htm

    If you're wanting to get the most our of your BASIC Stamp, grab a copy
    of Al Williams book "Microcontroller Projects with BASIC Stamps", or
    Scott Edwards "Programming and Customizing the BASIC Stamp".

    Regards,

    Bruce Reynolds
    http://www.rentron.com


    Original Message
    From: "Sean T. Lamont .lost." <lamont@a...>
    To: <basicstamps@egroups.com>
    Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 1:27 PM
    Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list


    >
    > Mostly I agree with these statements, but...
    >
    >
    > > 7) PLEASE STAY WITH BASIC as a programming language
    >
    > Argh! Stamp's basic implementation is an irrevocably crippled
    > implementation of an irrevocably crippled language! Anyone with any kind
    > of software background who has used the stamp knows this. I had thought
    > about dumping the stamp and using a PIC, just because I thought that pic
    > assembler might give me more control over what I'm doing.
    >
    > Case in point - as far as I know you can't do the following
    >
    > if (pin0 is high)
    > function1();
    > else
    > function2();
    >
    > This is a really basic control structure, and as far as I can tell, you
    > can't do it in pbasic. I'd love to see a stamp running C, C++, pascal,
    > ADA, perl, prolog, lisp, cobol, eiffel, python,php4, or a better version
    > of basic.
    >
    >
    >
    > Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
    > Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
    > email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    > "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-03 22:17
    Check out the BX24 from NetMedia:

    www.basicx.com

    It has a lot of the features that you all are asking for in your wish list
    postings. There is a somewhat active maillist on egroups as well - called
    (DUH) basicx which you can get in digest form - by-the-way

    Just my 2 cents

    Vic
    __________________________________________

    Victor Fraenckel vfraenc1@n...
    Home of the WindReader Electronic Theodolite
    Read the WIND
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-03 22:58
    On Wed, 3 May 2000, Schmidt, Kyle wrote:

    > I must agree that the given syntax makes it sometimes difficult to trace
    > program flow. But what prototyping languages are out there that will run in
    > the given space?

    A stripped down version of C would probably be appropriate - IE, no
    stdlib, stdin, math libraries. Limited debugging libraries.

    > The if structure is not intuitive, and I have had some of my employees make
    > mistakes with it. But, you can put a gosub in where the function code would
    > go. So, you are looking at five lines of code instead of three. It's not a
    > big deal.

    You still cannot, as far as I know, branch to a subroutine on conditional.
    Also, as far as I know, you cannot define parametrized subroutines. This
    is a simple stack operation and some lexical parsing, it would add much to
    parallax's basic and probably take a small number of bytes of assembly to
    implement. I expect most of it could be done in the editor. Oh, that would
    e another thing would be c-style CPP that could handle includes and macros
    - this could be done entirely in the editor.

    > In addition, I would contend that the VIC20 was a more powerful computer
    > than the stamp. For one (very important thing), it had far more variable
    > space. This alone made the implementation of complex branching possible.

    Depends on what perspective you take. Then again, the SX is about 50x
    faster.


    Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
    Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
    email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 00:07
    Well folks, I have to enter the debate on the JUST SAY NO TO PBASIC side.
    Frankly I hate it! It takes a LEAST twice as long to write decent code, if
    you aren't fed up by then. I must confess that I've moved to the OOPIC. Wow!
    What a breath of fresh air. *real* subroutines, and if-else! Maybe Parallax
    should come out with a Turbo Stamp. [noparse]:)[/noparse] Programmable in a *real* programming
    language. I want more I/O and A/D conversion, multitasking, and event driven
    interrupts.
    -William
    www.GoRobotics.net

    Original Message
    From: Kerry Barlow <admin@m...>
    To: <basicstamps@egroups.com>
    Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 2:04 PM
    Subject: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list


    > Adding to the wish list for a modern stamp
    > 1) real time clock
    > 2) interrupts
    > 3) more memory
    > 4) larger variable space (the stamp IIsx does NOT fit the bill for these)
    > 5) Dallas 1 wire compatibilty
    > 6) natch,you can never have to much speed
    > 7) PLEASE STAY WITH BASIC as a programming language
    > I dont see the small footprint of a stamp as a real selling pt.Possibly
    > increasing its overall size by a small amount to add many more features
    > would not be to bad.I cant imagine anyone even in industry actually
    needing
    > such a tiny footprint,not after they use the 16 IO lines etc etc etc
    > increasing overall circuit size anyhow.
    > Sincerely
    > Kerry
    > Admin@M...
    > WWW server hosting
    > [url=Http://mntnweb.com]Http://mntnweb.com[/url]
    > Binghamton online Webcam [url=Http://MntnWeb.Com/bing.htm]Http://MntnWeb.Com/bing.htm[/url]
    > CHRISTMAS Web Page [url=Http://mntnweb.com/xmas.htm]Http://mntnweb.com/xmas.htm[/url]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 00:07
    Amen!
    -William
    www.GoRobotics.net


    Original Message
    From: Sean T. Lamont .lost. <lamont@a...>
    To: <basicstamps@egroups.com>
    Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 3:27 PM
    Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list


    >
    > Mostly I agree with these statements, but...
    >
    >
    > > 7) PLEASE STAY WITH BASIC as a programming language
    >
    > Argh! Stamp's basic implementation is an irrevocably crippled
    > implementation of an irrevocably crippled language! Anyone with any kind
    > of software background who has used the stamp knows this. I had thought
    > about dumping the stamp and using a PIC, just because I thought that pic
    > assembler might give me more control over what I'm doing.
    >
    > Case in point - as far as I know you can't do the following
    >
    > if (pin0 is high)
    > function1();
    > else
    > function2();
    >
    > This is a really basic control structure, and as far as I can tell, you
    > can't do it in pbasic. I'd love to see a stamp running C, C++, pascal,
    > ADA, perl, prolog, lisp, cobol, eiffel, python,php4, or a better version
    > of basic.
    >
    >
    >
    > Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
    > Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
    > email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    > "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 00:31
    Well, since someone finally suggested a product from one of Parallax's
    competitors, I'll suggest another (only at the risk of getting blasted,
    of course).

    Check out: www.rabbitsemiconductor.com

    They advertise:4 serial ports, floating point math, C programmable,
    interrupts, battery backed RTC, WD timer, built in timers, 40+ I/O pins.
    Plus they offer an evaluation board and kit for $100 that includes a
    built in ADC and DAC.

    > Check out the BX24 from NetMedia:
    > www.basicx.com
    > It has a lot of the features that you all are asking for in your wish
    list postings. There is a
    > somewhat active maillist on egroups as well - called (DUH) basicx which
    you can get in digest
    > form...
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 01:04
    Hmm, and I'll enter on the other side. If it wasn't in Basic, then it
    wouldn't be the Basic Stamp. The Stamp is popular, not because it can do
    all things for all people, but because it can do LOTS of things very simply.
    It can do it with minimum development time and it can do them in a way
    that
    is very easy to debug. When the OOPIC or BX-24 go out to lunch, its very
    hard to figure it out because the libraries are hidden and you are still
    modifying them, you just can't tell what you just did in many cases.
    The other products are no doubt good for something, but in most cases,
    they just won't replace the Stamp's ease of use, ease of programming and
    just plain reliability. A VW beetle isn't a Porche, but its more reliable
    than a Porche...

    IMO, YMMV,
    DLC

    William Cox wrote:
    >
    > Well folks, I have to enter the debate on the JUST SAY NO TO PBASIC side.
    > Frankly I hate it! It takes a LEAST twice as long to write decent code, if
    > you aren't fed up by then. I must confess that I've moved to the OOPIC. Wow!
    > What a breath of fresh air. *real* subroutines, and if-else! Maybe Parallax
    > should come out with a Turbo Stamp. [noparse]:)[/noparse] Programmable in a *real* programming
    > language. I want more I/O and A/D conversion, multitasking, and event driven
    > interrupts.
    > -William
    > www.GoRobotics.net
    >
    >
    Original Message
    > From: Kerry Barlow <admin@m...>
    > To: <basicstamps@egroups.com>
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 2:04 PM
    > Subject: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list
    >
    > > Adding to the wish list for a modern stamp
    > > 1) real time clock
    > > 2) interrupts
    > > 3) more memory
    > > 4) larger variable space (the stamp IIsx does NOT fit the bill for these)
    > > 5) Dallas 1 wire compatibilty
    > > 6) natch,you can never have to much speed
    > > 7) PLEASE STAY WITH BASIC as a programming language
    > > I dont see the small footprint of a stamp as a real selling pt.Possibly
    > > increasing its overall size by a small amount to add many more features
    > > would not be to bad.I cant imagine anyone even in industry actually
    > needing
    > > such a tiny footprint,not after they use the 16 IO lines etc etc etc
    > > increasing overall circuit size anyhow.
    > > Sincerely
    > > Kerry
    > > Admin@M...
    > > WWW server hosting
    > > [url=Http://mntnweb.com]Http://mntnweb.com[/url]
    > > Binghamton online Webcam [url=Http://MntnWeb.Com/bing.htm]Http://MntnWeb.Com/bing.htm[/url]
    > > CHRISTMAS Web Page [url=Http://mntnweb.com/xmas.htm]Http://mntnweb.com/xmas.htm[/url]
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    --
    Dennis Clark http://www.verinet.com/~dlc
    dlc@v...
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 01:10
    Well, Basic isn't a bad language on the whole, but PBasic is terrible
    if you ask me. They need to give you more control structure, ie. ..
    If... Elseif... else... End if rather than just If... Goto. to get
    rid of the dang GOTO's.

    Also, adding fuctions and subroutines that could accept arguments is
    a must. If you ask me though, there's nothing wrong with basic. If
    Parallax adopted a version with similar structure to even QBasic, I'd
    have no complaints. It's much easier than learning assembly if your
    new to electronics and programming.

    -Chris

    --- In basicstamps@egroups.com, "Sean T. Lamont .lost."
    <lamont@a...> wrote:
    >
    > Mostly I agree with these statements, but...
    >
    >
    > > 7) PLEASE STAY WITH BASIC as a programming language
    >
    > Argh! Stamp's basic implementation is an irrevocably crippled
    > implementation of an irrevocably crippled language! Anyone with any
    kind
    > of software background who has used the stamp knows this. I had
    thought
    > about dumping the stamp and using a PIC, just because I thought
    that pic
    > assembler might give me more control over what I'm doing.
    >
    > Case in point - as far as I know you can't do the following
    >
    > if (pin0 is high)
    > function1();
    > else
    > function2();
    >
    > This is a really basic control structure, and as far as I can tell,
    you
    > can't do it in pbasic. I'd love to see a stamp running C, C++,
    pascal,
    > ADA, perl, prolog, lisp, cobol, eiffel, python,php4, or a better
    version
    > of basic.
    >
    >
    >
    > Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc.
    (ServNet)
    > Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma -
    Bremerton
    > email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    > "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H.
    Simpson
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 01:10
    On Wed, 3 May 2000, Dennis Clark wrote:

    > The other products are no doubt good for something, but in most cases,
    > they just won't replace the Stamp's ease of use, ease of programming and
    > just plain reliability. A VW beetle isn't a Porche, but its more reliable
    > than a Porche...

    I don't want to start a flame war, but I maintain that most people who
    believe that basic in general, and pbasic in specific, is easier to
    program than more structured languages haven't spent much time with
    anything else. If anyone with a software engineering or
    large-scale development background chooses to step up and say yes, pbasic
    is better for what it's meant to do than other languages, I'll gladly
    reconsider my position.

    Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
    Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
    email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 01:13
    On Thu, 4 May 2000, Chris wrote:

    > a must. If you ask me though, there's nothing wrong with basic. If
    > Parallax adopted a version with similar structure to even QBasic, I'd
    > have no complaints. It's much easier than learning assembly if your
    > new to electronics and programming.

    For as vitriolically as I've been trouncing basic, I agree with this 99%.
    Of course, then it approaches a more structured language like pascal or C,
    which is exactly what I've been saying.


    Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
    Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
    email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 01:43
    In a message dated 5/3/00 7:11:55 PM Central Daylight Time,
    lamont@a... writes:

    > I don't want to start a flame war

    Too late.....
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 01:49
    In a message dated 5/3/00 7:11:55 PM Central Daylight Time,
    lamont@a... writes:

    > If anyone with a software engineering or large-scale development background
    > chooses to step up and say yes, pbasic is better for what it's meant to do
    than
    > other languages, I'll gladly reconsider my position.

    "Better" is a relative term and only meaningful in the eye of the beholder.
    PBASIC is what it is -- take it or leave it. Yes, it's a bit quirky when
    compared to PC-oriented versions of BASIC, but we're not doing PC-type
    projects here, we're doing small-scale embedded control.
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 01:50
    To my knowledge the BSII supports sin, cos, and tan... what would you be
    doing with a BASIC stamp that would require so many features?
    > Higher Math Functions, like sin, cos, tan, abs, log, ln, fix, sqrt, power,
    > etc.
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 01:59
    Sean,

    OK, I'll take that challenge. I've been in the software/computer
    industry for about 19 years. Including working on embedded software
    on disk drives, tape drives, mother boards and manufacturing floor machines.
    I've worked on OS system code, processor simulation packages, HTML, web,
    some database and even a few GUI packages.
    For fast turnaround embedded controllers, the Stamp is the best thing
    I have seen yet (I've worked with stuff from the venerable 8748 to the
    not-so-venerable 6809 (which I hated)). Whoa, embedded emphasis, I hate
    LISP.
    How depressing, it appears that I _have_ been around the block a few
    times.

    I don't want to invalidate your opinion, but mine seems to be vastly
    different. Stamps are damn simple - at times frustrating for those of
    us used to more lush languages, but heck, for simple embedded stuff, I'll
    place the Stamp up against any of the options out there in a contest of
    development and debugging time. It could be that because I have a LOT of
    time in on PICs in general, I don't find PBASIC quite as baffling as some
    might.

    IMO, YMMV,
    DLC

    "Sean T. Lamont .lost." wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 3 May 2000, Dennis Clark wrote:
    >
    > > The other products are no doubt good for something, but in most cases,
    > > they just won't replace the Stamp's ease of use, ease of programming and
    > > just plain reliability. A VW beetle isn't a Porche, but its more reliable
    > > than a Porche...
    >
    > I don't want to start a flame war, but I maintain that most people who
    > believe that basic in general, and pbasic in specific, is easier to
    > program than more structured languages haven't spent much time with
    > anything else. If anyone with a software engineering or
    > large-scale development background chooses to step up and say yes, pbasic
    > is better for what it's meant to do than other languages, I'll gladly
    > reconsider my position.
    >
    > Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
    > Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
    > email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    > "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson

    --
    Dennis Clark http://www.verinet.com/~dlc
    dlc@v...
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 02:00
    On Wed, 3 May 2000 jonwms@a... wrote:

    > "Better" is a relative term and only meaningful in the eye of the beholder.
    > PBASIC is what it is -- take it or leave it. Yes, it's a bit quirky when
    > compared to PC-oriented versions of BASIC, but we're not doing PC-type
    > projects here, we're doing small-scale embedded control.

    Of course it is, and what I said was "Better" in the eye of someone who
    actually knows anything about computer languages, not better in the eye of
    someone who may know a ton about small-scale embedded control but hasn't
    ever written a substantial program in their life. IMO, the former group
    are better suited to judge it against other programming languages, even
    for what it's designed for. And I firmly place myself in the former group
    - my electrical design skills are rudimentary at best, and I have
    substantial background in large-scale object-oriented databases. So at the
    very least you see my bias.

    Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
    Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
    email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 02:05
    On Wed, 3 May 2000, Dennis Clark wrote:

    > I don't want to invalidate your opinion, but mine seems to be vastly
    > different. Stamps are damn simple - at times frustrating for those of
    > us used to more lush languages, but heck, for simple embedded stuff, I'll
    > place the Stamp up against any of the options out there in a contest of
    > development and debugging time. It could be that because I have a LOT of
    > time in on PICs in general, I don't find PBASIC quite as baffling as some
    > might.

    Thanks for your opinions. Though what I'm hearing from you is "Stamps are
    better than other microcontroller programming environments", which I can
    certainly believe. But what I'm hearing from other list members with less
    development experience than yourself is "pbasic's simplicity as an
    embedded language is better than complicating things which such "high
    level" constructs as modern control flow.', which I patently disagree
    with, and I expect probably stems from a lack of knowledge of what modern
    control flow is, and why it may be good.


    Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
    Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
    email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 02:09
    Dennis Clark wrote:
    >
    > Sean,
    >
    > OK, I'll take that challenge. I've been in the software/computer
    [noparse][[/noparse]snip]

    I would like to retract everything after this line - I sounded like
    a pompous old fart. Since I'm only 40, I would like it to pick up like so:

    for a little while. I think the Stamps are the best thing since sliced
    bread for simple embedded projects. Yeah, uh-huh, yup.

    DLC
    --
    Dennis Clark http://www.verinet.com/~dlc
    dlc@v...
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 03:57
    > I don't want to start a flame war, but I maintain that most people who
    > believe that basic in general, and pbasic in specific, is easier to
    > program than more structured languages haven't spent much time with
    > anything else. If anyone with a software engineering or
    > large-scale development background chooses to step up and say yes, pbasic
    > is better for what it's meant to do than other languages, I'll gladly
    > reconsider my position.

    I've programmed in everything from C to java, to ASM, but before all that, I
    played with the stamp. I found it really nice with a limited background to be
    able to create something useful.
    I guess the only issue is now that I know more, I'm ready for more complicated
    programming methods, but the basic stamp stops about half-way up the
    microcontroller learning curve.
    it seems like half the messages on this list are from people who can't get their
    computer to talk to their stamp, and the other half are from people looking for
    or suggesting ways to get around the language's peculiarities.
    I like the concept, but it needs more functionality.

    Jason Lavoie
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 12:35
    But I think it would be MORE EASIER without the pBasic language. I think it
    makes doing anything worth while with it just plain difficult.
    -William


    Original Message
    From: Dennis Clark <dlc@v...>
    To: <basicstamps@egroups.com>
    Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 8:04 PM
    Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list


    > Hmm, and I'll enter on the other side. If it wasn't in Basic, then it
    > wouldn't be the Basic Stamp. The Stamp is popular, not because it can do
    > all things for all people, but because it can do LOTS of things very
    simply.
    > It can do it with minimum development time and it can do them in a way
    > that
    > is very easy to debug. When the OOPIC or BX-24 go out to lunch, its very
    > hard to figure it out because the libraries are hidden and you are still
    > modifying them, you just can't tell what you just did in many cases.
    > The other products are no doubt good for something, but in most cases,
    > they just won't replace the Stamp's ease of use, ease of programming and
    > just plain reliability. A VW beetle isn't a Porche, but its more reliable
    > than a Porche...
    >
    > IMO, YMMV,
    > DLC
    >
    > William Cox wrote:
    > >
    > > Well folks, I have to enter the debate on the JUST SAY NO TO PBASIC
    side.
    > > Frankly I hate it! It takes a LEAST twice as long to write decent code,
    if
    > > you aren't fed up by then. I must confess that I've moved to the OOPIC.
    Wow!
    > > What a breath of fresh air. *real* subroutines, and if-else! Maybe
    Parallax
    > > should come out with a Turbo Stamp. [noparse]:)[/noparse] Programmable in a *real*
    programming
    > > language. I want more I/O and A/D conversion, multitasking, and event
    driven
    > > interrupts.
    > > -William
    > > www.GoRobotics.net
    > >
    > >
    Original Message
    > > From: Kerry Barlow <admin@m...>
    > > To: <basicstamps@egroups.com>
    > > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 2:04 PM
    > > Subject: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list
    > >
    > > > Adding to the wish list for a modern stamp
    > > > 1) real time clock
    > > > 2) interrupts
    > > > 3) more memory
    > > > 4) larger variable space (the stamp IIsx does NOT fit the bill for
    these)
    > > > 5) Dallas 1 wire compatibilty
    > > > 6) natch,you can never have to much speed
    > > > 7) PLEASE STAY WITH BASIC as a programming language
    > > > I dont see the small footprint of a stamp as a real selling
    pt.Possibly
    > > > increasing its overall size by a small amount to add many more
    features
    > > > would not be to bad.I cant imagine anyone even in industry actually
    > > needing
    > > > such a tiny footprint,not after they use the 16 IO lines etc etc etc
    > > > increasing overall circuit size anyhow.
    > > > Sincerely
    > > > Kerry
    > > > Admin@M...
    > > > WWW server hosting
    > > > [url=Http://mntnweb.com]Http://mntnweb.com[/url]
    > > > Binghamton online Webcam [url=Http://MntnWeb.Com/bing.htm]Http://MntnWeb.Com/bing.htm[/url]
    > > > CHRISTMAS Web Page [url=Http://mntnweb.com/xmas.htm]Http://mntnweb.com/xmas.htm[/url]
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Dennis Clark http://www.verinet.com/~dlc
    > dlc@v...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 13:19
    The great thing about the Stamp is the Basic and the ease of programming.
    It allows mechanical engineers with little electrical/electronics/software
    background beyond Ohm's Law, to use the Stamp to control purely
    mechanical processes electronically. Rather than having to accept
    incomprehensible solutions from electronics/software people who
    who do not know, and are not even interested in finding out, what a
    mechanical advantage is!
    Original Message
    From: Sean T. Lamont .lost. <lamont@a...>
    To: <basicstamps@egroups.com>
    Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 8:10 PM
    Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list


    > On Wed, 3 May 2000, Dennis Clark wrote:
    >
    > > The other products are no doubt good for something, but in most cases,
    > > they just won't replace the Stamp's ease of use, ease of programming and
    > > just plain reliability. A VW beetle isn't a Porche, but its more
    reliable
    > > than a Porche...
    >
    > I don't want to start a flame war, but I maintain that most people who
    > believe that basic in general, and pbasic in specific, is easier to
    > program than more structured languages haven't spent much time with
    > anything else. If anyone with a software engineering or
    > large-scale development background chooses to step up and say yes, pbasic
    > is better for what it's meant to do than other languages, I'll gladly
    > reconsider my position.
    >
    > Sean T. Lamont, CTO / Chief NetNerd, Abstract Software, Inc. (ServNet)
    > Seattle - Bellingham - Vancouver - Portland - Everett - Tacoma - Bremerton
    > email: lamont@a... WWW: http://www.serv.net
    > "...There's no moral, it's just a lot of stuff that happens". - H. Simpson
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    _____________________________________________
    NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
    Click here for FREE Internet Access and Email
    http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 17:02
    May I give a synopsis? Change everything that made the basicstamp what it
    is today and ya'll might buy it in the future.... Except, with all the
    changes ya'll propose, it will cost $347.18. Close? (flame suit on)

    Dan

    Original Message
    From: William Cox [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=dlkriaPShgqwboCdjPfIercqlk8WWlw3KcyfysdSb3-SI3p7QNQjUxb9KcGuxLVt-siupUUCWcr1qMD16Tbsz-0]william@c...[/url
    Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 5:35 AM
    To: basicstamps@egroups.com
    Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list

    But I think it would be MORE EASIER without the pBasic language. I think it
    makes doing anything worth while with it just plain difficult.
    -William


    Original Message
    From: Dennis Clark <dlc@v...>
    To: <basicstamps@egroups.com>
    Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 8:04 PM
    Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list


    > Hmm, and I'll enter on the other side. If it wasn't in Basic, then it
    > wouldn't be the Basic Stamp. The Stamp is popular, not because it can do
    > all things for all people, but because it can do LOTS of things very
    simply.
    > It can do it with minimum development time and it can do them in a way
    > that
    > is very easy to debug. When the OOPIC or BX-24 go out to lunch, its very
    > hard to figure it out because the libraries are hidden and you are still
    > modifying them, you just can't tell what you just did in many cases.
    > The other products are no doubt good for something, but in most cases,
    > they just won't replace the Stamp's ease of use, ease of programming and
    > just plain reliability. A VW beetle isn't a Porche, but its more reliable
    > than a Porche...
    >
    > IMO, YMMV,
    > DLC
    >
    > William Cox wrote:
    > >
    > > Well folks, I have to enter the debate on the JUST SAY NO TO PBASIC
    side.
    > > Frankly I hate it! It takes a LEAST twice as long to write decent code,
    if
    > > you aren't fed up by then. I must confess that I've moved to the OOPIC.
    Wow!
    > > What a breath of fresh air. *real* subroutines, and if-else! Maybe
    Parallax
    > > should come out with a Turbo Stamp. [noparse]:)[/noparse] Programmable in a *real*
    programming
    > > language. I want more I/O and A/D conversion, multitasking, and event
    driven
    > > interrupts.
    > > -William
    > > www.GoRobotics.net
    > >
    > >
    Original Message
    > > From: Kerry Barlow <admin@m...>
    > > To: <basicstamps@egroups.com>
    > > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 2:04 PM
    > > Subject: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list
    > >
    > > > Adding to the wish list for a modern stamp
    > > > 1) real time clock
    > > > 2) interrupts
    > > > 3) more memory
    > > > 4) larger variable space (the stamp IIsx does NOT fit the bill for
    these)
    > > > 5) Dallas 1 wire compatibilty
    > > > 6) natch,you can never have to much speed
    > > > 7) PLEASE STAY WITH BASIC as a programming language
    > > > I dont see the small footprint of a stamp as a real selling
    pt.Possibly
    > > > increasing its overall size by a small amount to add many more
    features
    > > > would not be to bad.I cant imagine anyone even in industry actually
    > > needing
    > > > such a tiny footprint,not after they use the 16 IO lines etc etc etc
    > > > increasing overall circuit size anyhow.
    > > > Sincerely
    > > > Kerry
    > > > Admin@M...
    > > > WWW server hosting
    > > > [url=Http://mntnweb.com]Http://mntnweb.com[/url]
    > > > Binghamton online Webcam [url=Http://MntnWeb.Com/bing.htm]Http://MntnWeb.Com/bing.htm[/url]
    > > > CHRISTMAS Web Page [url=Http://mntnweb.com/xmas.htm]Http://mntnweb.com/xmas.htm[/url]
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Dennis Clark http://www.verinet.com/~dlc
    > dlc@v...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  • ArchiverArchiver Posts: 46,084
    edited 2000-05-04 19:05
    Well, maybe for others. But the BS1/2/SX is fine with me. It's just the
    language. If real subroutines and If-Else were added I would be completely
    satisfied. I mean, they aren't *that* hard to figure out. As for all the
    other "improvements" we've been suggesting, I'm sure we all realize that
    they will never happen. Right?
    -William


    Original Message
    From: <dsherman@r...>
    To: <basicstamps@egroups.com>
    Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 12:02 PM
    Subject: RE: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list


    > May I give a synopsis? Change everything that made the basicstamp what it
    > is today and ya'll might buy it in the future.... Except, with all the
    > changes ya'll propose, it will cost $347.18. Close? (flame suit on)
    >
    > Dan
    >
    >
    Original Message
    > From: William Cox [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=XeyJ9OAoJ8TZjgcHbIWyXdE-AnkG3PnsV8VQH2E79dXoHYvPN4ls8NV2ZdqtoHGknyZxnRiKW9icnlXkxfAS]william@c...[/url
    > Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 5:35 AM
    > To: basicstamps@egroups.com
    > Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list
    >
    > But I think it would be MORE EASIER without the pBasic language. I think
    it
    > makes doing anything worth while with it just plain difficult.
    > -William
    >
    >
    >
    Original Message
    > From: Dennis Clark <dlc@v...>
    > To: <basicstamps@egroups.com>
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 8:04 PM
    > Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list
    >
    >
    > > Hmm, and I'll enter on the other side. If it wasn't in Basic, then it
    > > wouldn't be the Basic Stamp. The Stamp is popular, not because it can
    do
    > > all things for all people, but because it can do LOTS of things very
    > simply.
    > > It can do it with minimum development time and it can do them in a way
    > > that
    > > is very easy to debug. When the OOPIC or BX-24 go out to lunch, its
    very
    > > hard to figure it out because the libraries are hidden and you are still
    > > modifying them, you just can't tell what you just did in many cases.
    > > The other products are no doubt good for something, but in most cases,
    > > they just won't replace the Stamp's ease of use, ease of programming and
    > > just plain reliability. A VW beetle isn't a Porche, but its more
    reliable
    > > than a Porche...
    > >
    > > IMO, YMMV,
    > > DLC
    > >
    > > William Cox wrote:
    > > >
    > > > Well folks, I have to enter the debate on the JUST SAY NO TO PBASIC
    > side.
    > > > Frankly I hate it! It takes a LEAST twice as long to write decent
    code,
    > if
    > > > you aren't fed up by then. I must confess that I've moved to the
    OOPIC.
    > Wow!
    > > > What a breath of fresh air. *real* subroutines, and if-else! Maybe
    > Parallax
    > > > should come out with a Turbo Stamp. [noparse]:)[/noparse] Programmable in a *real*
    > programming
    > > > language. I want more I/O and A/D conversion, multitasking, and event
    > driven
    > > > interrupts.
    > > > -William
    > > > www.GoRobotics.net
    > > >
    > > >
    Original Message
    > > > From: Kerry Barlow <admin@m...>
    > > > To: <basicstamps@egroups.com>
    > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 2:04 PM
    > > > Subject: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Stamp wish list
    > > >
    > > > > Adding to the wish list for a modern stamp
    > > > > 1) real time clock
    > > > > 2) interrupts
    > > > > 3) more memory
    > > > > 4) larger variable space (the stamp IIsx does NOT fit the bill for
    > these)
    > > > > 5) Dallas 1 wire compatibilty
    > > > > 6) natch,you can never have to much speed
    > > > > 7) PLEASE STAY WITH BASIC as a programming language
    > > > > I dont see the small footprint of a stamp as a real selling
    > pt.Possibly
    > > > > increasing its overall size by a small amount to add many more
    > features
    > > > > would not be to bad.I cant imagine anyone even in industry actually
    > > > needing
    > > > > such a tiny footprint,not after they use the 16 IO lines etc etc etc
    > > > > increasing overall circuit size anyhow.
    > > > > Sincerely
    > > > > Kerry
    > > > > Admin@M...
    > > > > WWW server hosting
    > > > > [url=Http://mntnweb.com]Http://mntnweb.com[/url]
    > > > > Binghamton online Webcam [url=Http://MntnWeb.Com/bing.htm]Http://MntnWeb.Com/bing.htm[/url]
    > > > > CHRISTMAS Web Page [url=Http://mntnweb.com/xmas.htm]Http://mntnweb.com/xmas.htm[/url]
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > >
    > > --
    > >
    > > Dennis Clark http://www.verinet.com/~dlc
    > > dlc@v...
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
Sign In or Register to comment.