SX Basic Compiler
Archiver
Posts: 46,084
At 03:25 PM 10/22/03 -0400, smartdim@a... wrote:
>What I did was made some ribbon cable adapters for the I/O pins that go to a
>larger breadboard and leave the SX on the small board that came with the unit
>sold by Parallax. Once I have the breadboard version working I use
>expresspcb.com and have boards manufacutured.
>
>You will like this uP, but be warned. not nearly as freindly as the basic
>stamp to program. There is a Yahoo group for the SX, same as this group.
>
>Ken
Ken -
For you or anyone else who might be interested, there is a Basic Compiler
available for the SX microprocessor. The trial version is free for the
download.
You can find the web site here:
http://www.sxwiz.com/
The full version is available at an introductory price of $ 89.00 . The
compiler
will run on Win 95, Win 98 and Win XP according to the web site.
Just for the record, I am not affiliated with this product.
Regards,
Bruce Bates
>What I did was made some ribbon cable adapters for the I/O pins that go to a
>larger breadboard and leave the SX on the small board that came with the unit
>sold by Parallax. Once I have the breadboard version working I use
>expresspcb.com and have boards manufacutured.
>
>You will like this uP, but be warned. not nearly as freindly as the basic
>stamp to program. There is a Yahoo group for the SX, same as this group.
>
>Ken
Ken -
For you or anyone else who might be interested, there is a Basic Compiler
available for the SX microprocessor. The trial version is free for the
download.
You can find the web site here:
http://www.sxwiz.com/
The full version is available at an introductory price of $ 89.00 . The
compiler
will run on Win 95, Win 98 and Win XP according to the web site.
Just for the record, I am not affiliated with this product.
Regards,
Bruce Bates
Comments
critical timing, and real efficiency cannot be achieved with anything but
assembly language. Because all the peripherals are virtual peripherals, they
cannot be simply called, they have to be created in assembly. While you can
get away with using BASIC or C or whatever with the SX, it's never going to
be as effective or as efficient as using assembly. IMHO, this is one major
reason Parallax hasn't bothered to support anything but assembly for the SX.
Even if you do use a high-level language with the SX, you absolutely have to
understand what's happening on the assembler level, so that you can go back
and clean up the compiled code. In most cases (except for huge projects),
it's actually quicker to simply use assembler from the outset.
- Robert
Original Message
From: "Bruce Bates" <bvbates@u...>
> Ken -
>
> For you or anyone else who might be interested, there is a Basic Compiler
> available for the SX microprocessor. The trial version is free for the
> download.
> You can find the web site here:
> http://www.sxwiz.com/
>
> The full version is available at an introductory price of $ 89.00 . The
> compiler
> will run on Win 95, Win 98 and Win XP according to the web site.
>
> Just for the record, I am not affiliated with this product.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bruce Bates
days is material cost and speed of the processor. As you know, the SX compared
to
the Basic stamp is like a formula 1 car verses an old beat up Ford Pinto
running on 2 cylinders.
In any event, this basic compiler might be fun to mess with.
Ken
The problem with using compiled languages for the SX, is that it relies on
critical timing, and real efficiency cannot be achieved with anything but
assembly language. Because all the peripherals are virtual peripherals, they
cannot be simply called, they have to be created in assembly. While you can
get away with using BASIC or C or whatever with the SX, it's never going to
be as effective or as efficient as using assembly. IMHO, this is one major
reason Parallax hasn't bothered to support anything but assembly for the SX.
Even if you do use a high-level language with the SX, you absolutely have to
understand what's happening on the assembler level, so that you can go back
and clean up the compiled code. In most cases (except for huge projects),
it's actually quicker to simply use assembler from the outset.
- Robert
[noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
smartdim@a... writes:
In any event, this basic compiler might be fun to mess with.
NO IT ISN'T....................I will stick with pure assembly, thanks for
the tip though.
Ken
[noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
why you're now saying it isn't fun? Did you
just change your mind? Why the sudden
difference? Please let us SX newbies know.
--- In basicstamps@yahoogroups.com, smartdim@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/22/2003 4:17:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> smartdim@a... writes:
> In any event, this basic compiler might be fun to mess with.
>
> NO IT ISN'T....................I will stick with pure assembly,
thanks for
> the tip though.
>
> Ken
>
>
> [noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
here.
-- Jon Williams
-- Applications Engineer, Parallax
-- Dallas Office
Original Message
From: Allan Lane [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=fi0fveEzV_42zHpwF8EdwhD50ibfIgclJ6lEqlJZJJs938qgzd9fCN6wkPErp-VGgei0ZO8Q46LG4_TUsikKDVO6TE0]allan.lane@h...[/url
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:28 AM
To: basicstamps@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Re: SX Basic Compiler
Wait -- did you try the compiler, and that's
why you're now saying it isn't fun? Did you
just change your mind? Why the sudden
difference? Please let us SX newbies know.
--- In basicstamps@yahoogroups.com, smartdim@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 10/22/2003 4:17:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> smartdim@a... writes:
> In any event, this basic compiler might be fun to mess with.
>
> NO IT ISN'T....................I will stick with pure assembly,
thanks for
> the tip though.
>
> Ken
>
>
> [noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the Subject
and Body of the message will be ignored.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This message has been scanned by WebShield. Please report SPAM to
abuse@p....
Sorry guys...A.D.D.
Original Message
From: smartdim@a... [noparse]/noparse]mailto:[url=http://forums.parallaxinc.com/group/basicstamps/post?postID=ZwqbT5UmMT0E6nQSgyyzFTd--j6HSFqAiH5w6miSY3iFdC1W2AiWPM-vFN5hPKYBXcvhwSD1xxuT]smartdim@a...[/url
Sent: October 22, 2003 16:15
To: basicstamps@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [noparse][[/noparse]basicstamps] Re: SX Basic Compiler
Very interesting.......the main reason I rarely use the basic stamp these
days is material cost and speed of the processor. As you know, the SX
compared to
the Basic stamp is like a formula 1 car verses an old beat up Ford Pinto
running on 2 cylinders.
In any event, this basic compiler might be fun to mess with.
Ken
The problem with using compiled languages for the SX, is that it relies on
critical timing, and real efficiency cannot be achieved with anything but
assembly language. Because all the peripherals are virtual peripherals, they
cannot be simply called, they have to be created in assembly. While you can
get away with using BASIC or C or whatever with the SX, it's never going to
be as effective or as efficient as using assembly. IMHO, this is one major
reason Parallax hasn't bothered to support anything but assembly for the SX.
Even if you do use a high-level language with the SX, you absolutely have to
understand what's happening on the assembler level, so that you can go back
and clean up the compiled code. In most cases (except for huge projects),
it's actually quicker to simply use assembler from the outset.
- Robert
[noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, just send mail to:
basicstamps-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
from the same email address that you subscribed. Text in the Subject and
Body of the message will be ignored.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
at the assembled code, it was addressing I/O ports "e" which do not exist on
an SX 28 AC, arghhh.
Also, It was very difficult for me to discern the generated assembly code.
Also, at this point I have a pretty good handle on the SX, writing code in
assembly using the Parallax software.
Using the SXWiz software initially looks like I would be starting over at
square one in order to become proficient as using it....
As somebody else mentioned, you still need to know (should know) assembly to
really see what is going on.
All in all, after a rough learing curve, the SX is not very difficult to use.
It is just difficult in the begining having come from being spoiled with the
basic stamp ease of use.
The basic stamp is still an EXCELLENT device. I typically use it for quick
prototyping, then will rewrite the program in assembly for the SX, like now
using this Damn LCD module from Optrex. It is not a true 16 X 1 line, the user
must treat it as a 2 line device to address the 2nd 8 charaters. The basic stamp
has been excellent to "debug" use of the LCD. Now that I have all the codes
and address figured out, I am writing the code in assembly.
I am certainly no expert with the SX, but will lend any help I am capable of
giving.
Ken
Wait -- did you try the compiler, and that's
why you're now saying it isn't fun? Did you
just change your mind? Why the sudden
difference? Please let us SX newbies know.
[noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
jwilliams@p... writes:
Let's take that discussion to the SX List and focus on BASIC Stamps
here.
This is related to the Basic Stamp
Ken
[noparse][[/noparse]Non-text portions of this message have been removed]