Basic X .v.s. Basic Stamp II->

DiablodeMorte

Hey, THis isn't really a sand box question just a general question but..

Anyways. I was wondering how BASIC X's compare to the basic stamp line by parallax. I know basix X support multitasking but i don't know of many other things....

Oh, and on a lighter note. is Parallax thinking of coming out with multitasking basic stamps?

Ryan Clarke

The irony of this question won't be fully appreciated for a little while yet-

Ryan

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Ryan Clarke
Parallax Tech Support

RClarke@Parallax.com

RickB

Now THAT is an interesting response!

Rick

Gadgetman

*Sigh*

I hate it when you people hint like this...
(Not really...)

Either you've heard something like the BasicX is going out of production, or better, they're buying their chips from you... Or, you're about to launch the fabled BS3...

If it's the BS3, get it out there already, you're losing the Xmas sales!

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Don't visit my new website...

SN96

I saw the BasicX module on their site and it seems to be a drop in replacement for the Basic Stamp II. The speed and memory structure is very appealing. I was looking for a programming manual for it,·but could not find·one anywhere, so learning how to programming the thing looks dim.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Mike


"Don't always think outside the box, sometimes thinking inside the box is more practical and simple."
·

stamptrol

I've used the Basic-x, reluctantly, on couple of projects, largely because my partner doing the operator interface works in VB all the time. They are more or less pin compatible with stamps, have more memory. The manual is about 180 pages and describes a version of Visual Basic.

Personally have always come back to Stamps because who needs a VB implementation on a simple control project? . Also found compiling and debugging more cumbersome than PBASIC.

But, live and let live.

SN96

It is definetly not user friendly like the stamps. I was messing around with the BasicX editor and it is wildly different. Like you said, if the project is simple, the stamp is the best choice. I could only see if the aplication is beyond the stamp's capeability, would a more powerful module be needed.

Now if Parallax came out with a StampX that used a newer version of Pbasic, that would be sweet. Hint hint,

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Mike


"Don't always think outside the box, sometimes thinking inside the box is more practical and simple."
·

LoopyByteloose

Disappointment is my only friend, it will be with me until the end.....

In my opinion BasicX has a great advertising department and nearly no support.·The literature has never been corrected or updated in any reasonable fashion.· If you love Visual Basic, you might find it easy going, but the Yahoo site can be quite grumpy.

In the beginning I ordered from Parallax but got impatient with a backorder. So I cancelled my order and ordered BasicX as a second choice.· Having spent $700USD on an array of there devices, I have never gotten anywhere near the support, satisfaction,·or pleasure that I have from Parallax.

Incidentally, Parallax mistakeningly shipped that cancelled backorder.· When they notified me, they reduced the price to what seemed like their cost as an apology rather than have me refuse delivery.·

In turn, I·refused to accept the full·reduction as it would have seemed that all I cared about was price.· Instead, we met half-way.· I wanted the support as much as the product.

Everyone makes mistakes, but real people correct their own.

Still, I do read the BasicX·web site as I have all their stuff that one day I might put to use. I have my doubts about their speed claims.· If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"When all think alike, no one is thinking very much.' - Walter Lippmann (1889-1974)

······································································ Warm regards,····· G. Herzog [noparse][[/noparse]·黃鶴 ]·in Taiwan

SN96

I agree, the support from Parallax is truly unreal! That is why I chose to buy the Homework Board that comes with the "What's a microcontroller" book. I needed something bare bones and super easy to understand since I was a complete noob·at this hobby.

Since Parallax had so many examples floating around on the website and a very active forum, I knew this was the place that I could learn to do what I want to do. All the other sites I researched prior to my first purchase,·made me·uncomfortable with the lack of examples and support. None of them offered a "getting started" kit as easy and simple as the Homework board.


▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Mike


"Don't always think outside the box, sometimes thinking inside the box is more practical and simple."
·

Rsadeika

I also agree, with the support/help aspect of Parallax. I did some research prior to settling on Parallax, the competitors were lacking in a lot of areas in terms of support, variety of parts, ..., etc. Now that I am thinking of some other projects that could use multitasking, and maybe inline assembly, I find the transition very difficult. So, I agree with the suggestion of a 'BasicX'. More umph for the BasicStamp.

Paul Baker

Rsadeika said...
·Now that I am thinking of some other projects that could use multitasking, and maybe inline assembly, I find the transition very difficult.

Id look at the SX/B then, inline assembly, pjv has a multi-threaded·OS submitted under last last years contest (written in assembler because it uses some really neat tricks using hidden (undocumented) assembly instructions, but you could integrate it into an SX/B framework), and you don't have to sacrifice customer support because it is still under the Parallax umbrella of products.

Seeing your post about SX/B documentation shows your already thinking about it, a book is in the works and there is a pdf "Exploring the SX Microcontroller with Assembly and BASIC Programming" that does side by side assembly and SX/B, but you've likely looked at it.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
·1+1=10

Post Edited (Paul Baker) : 11/16/2005 7:31:39 PM GMT

LoopyByteloose

While BasicX proudly claims multitaking as a feature, they really won't help you get the bugs out of it. One of the users has a substantial amount of reverse-engineering on a web site that may eventually enlighten all, but a generalized multi-tasking framework is unlikely to efficently use the extremely limited resources of a micro-controller. In my opinion, if you really want that kind of microcontrol, it is in assembly level programing. Basic in any form, or C, or Java, will only get you started for these little guys. Sx/B and the SX-28 are a good entry.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"When all think alike, no one is thinking very much.' - Walter Lippmann (1889-1974)

······································································ Warm regards,····· G. Herzog [noparse][[/noparse]·黃鶴 ]·in Taiwan

Paul Baker

Multitasking in a µC is best done on a hardware level (SX is fast enough to be able to implement it without too much of a performance hit). Ubicom's IP series is an excellent example of a hardware multitasking µC (at least on paper, haven't used one), it's just a crying shame thier distributors are complete jackholes that are·absolutely uninterested in serving the hobbyist market. Im speaking of the distributors for the IP line, Parallax is obviously exempt from this characterisation, though since Parallax now owns the SX line, they really aren't an Ubicom distributor anymore.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
·1+1=10

Post Edited (Paul Baker) : 11/19/2005 4:30:21 PM GMT

pjv

Hi Kramer;

I think you are partly right that small micros like the SX lend a restrictive architecture to a multi-tasking environment, but if one is prepared to compromize a bit, then it is quite achievable.

For many years now I have used a very simple minded co-operative (non-preemptive) multi-tasking system, and until recently it has formed the backbone template of almost every bit of code I write.

It readily permits the (apparent) simultaneous operation of serial I/O, I2C, LED multiplexing, I/O bit scanning, push-button monitoring, or what ever. All it requires is a dozen or two lines of code and a few registers, and......writing your application code in a manner such that no task hogs the processor. Using state machines, code can be easily written to accommodate this need, and the results are marvelously simple; VERY little overhead.

For the Parallax contest I decided to expand on the RTOS, and wrote a fully premptive O/S. It was a little buggy at first as there were some aspects about the "secret" instructions I had to find out the hard way. Subsequently it had a major overhaul, and it is very solid now, and I was able to get it down to 99 bytes of code to-boot. Unfortunately, and here is where you are right on your issue, it uses 7 registers to save the processor state for each of the up-to-8 time tick (task) levels.

That said, it still is very useful, as I can write multi-thread code without thought of how the timing of one thread affects another. They are independent entities; the O/S provides that isolation. Time overhead is typically well less than 1 uSec for a task switch.

So yes, it is a little tight in an SX, but adequate and great for most applications, and because it is multitasking it easily accommodates external serial RAM for applications requiring more than what remains in the SX.

To get application timing right, I have NEVER had to use a "delay" loop yet; I squirm every time I see code where the processor has to hang around looping for time to pass.

Enough rambling about my passion.......

Cheers,

Peter (pjv)

LoopyByteloose

I really don't know that much about multi-tasking and I look forward to learning from your contest entry as a study model. As you created the system, it certainly handles your applicaton, but I suspect someone would try to cut and paste it into something it was never intended for.

Still, I would absolutely, absolutely, love to see a BasicStamp that can juggle like that.

My waryness has a source. It is just that 'multi-tasking' is a buzz word that came out of the early PC days. First there was MS-DOS and everytime you wanted a program to change, you had to load a new one. Then there was the 'terminate, but stay resident' revolution. Actually, I like it in some ways better than Windows as you know one thing is operating at one time. Finally, we have our WindowsXP which make programming look like a troupe of juggling octapuses. I suspect your are n a 'terminate, but stay resident' mode.

As you can see, the expectations of what multi-tasking can do, have grown.

Nevertheless, the joy and reality of microcontrollers is in their inherent compact size and comprehensive control. RISC provides freedom from a lot of addressing [noparse][[/noparse]which I never could seem to learn between the PORTS and the MEMORY MAP and much more]. A lot of things and concepts just seem to be absurd in transfer. This is one of them.

Another is the whole idea of 'portablility' by using a language such as C, Forth, and even Basic. While it is very nice to use a high level language to quickly develop micro-controllers, the high level languages tend to not be portable in any sense that was the original dream. In fact, portablity is somewhat of a dying issue as the herd has thinned to Apple [noparse][[/noparse]using Intel no less!], Microsoft [noparse][[/noparse]Intel's old buddy], and Sun[noparse][[/noparse]whatever].

So it seems a lot of begineers, including myself try to buy the most bang for their buck, but really are buying an illusion due to history and their lack of knowlege.

It is nice that Parallax doesn't promote the illusion, just the education of what really is.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"When all think alike, no one is thinking very much.' - Walter Lippmann (1889-1974)

······································································ Warm regards,····· G. Herzog [noparse][[/noparse]·黃鶴 ]·in Taiwan