Stamp clones
Archiver
Posts: 46,084
So what's with the state of "basic stamp clones", anyway? there have
been perhaps half-a-dozen such projects i've seen on the net, none
ever getting so far as to produce source code, and most limiting
themselves to the 64 bytes of eeprom in a 16F84. Most have faded
quiety into the woodwork.
Fitting the original basic stamp in a 16c54 was quite a feat of
programming, and parallax ought to be proud. Fitting similar acting
code in something like a 16f648 ought to be a piece of cake (8 times
the program memory, more ram, a "full" 256 bytes of eeprom, and a
nicer architecture.)
1) is parallax being hardnosed against such clones? It's probably
within their rights, but usually such behavior gets publicized...
2) Do the different timings of internal eeprom and faster clocks and
suchjust make it unusable from an application compatibility point of
view? After all, basic is infamous for for/next 'timing loops."
3) or is it just that the availability of compilers and easier
programming of (flash based) modern PICs make the whole thing
pointless? Anyone who is willing to deal with chips rather than a
pre-made board can writefaster and more functional code in about the
same time...
Thanks
BillW
been perhaps half-a-dozen such projects i've seen on the net, none
ever getting so far as to produce source code, and most limiting
themselves to the 64 bytes of eeprom in a 16F84. Most have faded
quiety into the woodwork.
Fitting the original basic stamp in a 16c54 was quite a feat of
programming, and parallax ought to be proud. Fitting similar acting
code in something like a 16f648 ought to be a piece of cake (8 times
the program memory, more ram, a "full" 256 bytes of eeprom, and a
nicer architecture.)
1) is parallax being hardnosed against such clones? It's probably
within their rights, but usually such behavior gets publicized...
2) Do the different timings of internal eeprom and faster clocks and
suchjust make it unusable from an application compatibility point of
view? After all, basic is infamous for for/next 'timing loops."
3) or is it just that the availability of compilers and easier
programming of (flash based) modern PICs make the whole thing
pointless? Anyone who is willing to deal with chips rather than a
pre-made board can writefaster and more functional code in about the
same time...
Thanks
BillW