Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Will a version of SPIN ever evolve for the BS products — Parallax Forums

Will a version of SPIN ever evolve for the BS products

LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
edited 2006-05-24 13:23 in Propeller 1
I suppose this is a 'left-handed' compliment, but SPIN is really easy and interesting.

Between the graphic features, the ease of documentation, and so forth; I am beginning to wonder if it could ever be another language for the BasicStamps.

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

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

Comments

  • Kevin WoodKevin Wood Posts: 1,266
    edited 2006-05-23 15:58
    I think it would be easier to replace the SX on a stamp module with a Propeller than it would be to port Spin to the SX. Or even create a 1-4 cog Propeller to build a module around.
  • Jon WilliamsJon Williams Posts: 6,491
    edited 2006-05-23 16:03
    Spin will not run on a "BASIC" Stamp. The Propeller is new, and we dont' know yet all the products we'll develop for it.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Jon Williams
    Applications Engineer, Parallax
  • Paul BakerPaul Baker Posts: 6,351
    edited 2006-05-23 18:19
    Kramer I believe you have it backwards, I would expect to see a more PBASIC version of the propeller down the road. The propeller was born out of frustration in finding a suitible microcontroller for the "brains" of an eventual BS3. Whether this is still the aim, I dont know, it could be that while this was the seed of inovation, the creature has taken a life of its own and will remain so.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    1+1=10
  • mcstarmcstar Posts: 144
    edited 2006-05-23 20:51
    Paul,
    I wonder how/why you'd expect to see a more "PBASIC" version of the propeller?· Wouldn't it make more sense to buy a PBASIC native chip (ie BS of your choice) when you need its capabilities, and then buy the Propeller only when you need the more advanced features?· If you "emulated" PBASIC in spin or even in Assembly, what advantage would you gain?· Woudn't you just be limiting your features, and running slower as a result of the abstraction?

    Personally, I'm chomping at the bit to get my hands on a Propeller exactly because of the new features and its extended capabilities (the areas my basic stamp is falling short on).· I've been using OOP for about 5 years in my day job on "Big Computers" and am elated that Parallax has elected to make it a core part of the Propeller's future.· You'll begin to see why as the product matures.

    In the IT world, I've seen what happens when one tries to force the basic syntax into an OOP environment, and I can tell you, you're much better off biting the bullet and pulling ties to PBasic's simplicity in favor of complete OOP. It will make you a better programer in the process. (and you won't forget PBasic when you need it either)




    Post Edited (mcstar) : 5/23/2006 8:54:11 PM GMT
  • Paul BakerPaul Baker Posts: 6,351
    edited 2006-05-23 21:18
    Like I said I don't know if it will happen, I just know the propeller came to being because they were looking for a new processor to base the next generation stamp on. They were not satisfied with what was availible, so they decided to make thier own microcontroller. The spin language is microcode burned into a ROM area of the propeller, this could in theory be replaced by a PBASIC-like command structure, however the entire PBASIC command structure couldn't fit in the current 512 instruction limitation of the cog memory. Ostensibly if this ever were pursued, the PBASIC command set would be expanded just as the BS1 -> BS2 command set expanded and would likely incorporate alot of the features of spin. I dont know, this is all hypotheoretical, I just know that the propeller project was kicked off from looking for a processor for a next generation stamp.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    1+1=10

    Post Edited (Paul Baker) : 5/23/2006 9:21:31 PM GMT
  • Stan671Stan671 Posts: 103
    edited 2006-05-23 23:40
    Frankly, I am not interested in seeing a "PBASIC" Propeller.· To me, that would be like dragging a boat anchor·behind a Ferrari.

    The ASM and Spin languages·are optimized for the Propeller processors and the Propeller hardware·is optimized for ASM and Spin.· You cannot get a better combination of new technology than that.· Why screw it up by trying to mold it to be like the old technology?

    What is there in PBASIC that cannot be done in Spin?

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Stan Dobrowski
  • CJCJ Posts: 470
    edited 2006-05-24 00:29
    let's not forget about objects portable between programs, there already is a bs2 function object

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Who says you have to have knowledge to use it?

    I've killed a fly with my bare mind.
  • Paul BakerPaul Baker Posts: 6,351
    edited 2006-05-24 01:04
    Guys, this is much ado about nothing: the propeller will always be its own entity, just as the SX and the PIC is its own entity even though those are the brains of various BS's. Even if Parallax chooses to release a BS3 based upon the the propeller, the propeller itself wont go away. Such an incarnation would be marketed towards a different set of people, those who are familiar with the Stamp and don't want to make a large leap (read learn more) to achieve more power.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    1+1=10
  • Jim FouchJim Fouch Posts: 395
    edited 2006-05-24 01:21
    I got my Demo Board last·Saturday and could not stop playing with it until Monday.· ;-)

    I have used the BS2, BS2SX, and all the SX's before. When I first saw the code a few weeks ago in SPIN i was a bit afraid of having to learn some new language, but I have to say I picked up SPIN in a few hours. Its really is very easy to use. Maybe not for the very BASIC of users, but I work in VB6 10 hours a day for a living so I'm not knocking BASIC. I just think SPIN is very easy to pick up and the idea of using OBJECTS on a uC is real cool.

    I'm still amazed to see what a single chip w/ 8 processors can really do.

    Anyone have any idea on how I could do a Video Overlay using just the Propeller?

    Jim
  • LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
    edited 2006-05-24 07:48
    Jim Fouch has the heart of the issue.
    I experienced the same fears and trepidations.
    Amazingly - The SPIN's OOP IDE is really smooth, really clear.

    I started with PBasic because Basic has always allowed an intuitive style of learning, but SPIN is even more so.

    I still wonder a bit about the ASM side of it. I see the code in the DATA section, but that is all.
    Will there ever be a Propeller Asm Simulator? [noparse][[/noparse]Forgive me if this ends up asking the ever generous Guenther to write more code].

    The SX-Sim is really a terriffic learning tool, but I feel that Propeller ASM is not for neophytes.

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

    ······································································ Warm regards,····· G. Herzog [noparse][[/noparse]·黃鶴 ]·in Taiwan
  • Tom WalkerTom Walker Posts: 509
    edited 2006-05-24 13:23
    Kramer,
    I imagine with little more than an '1881 to glom the vertical sync, the Propeller could handle this. Any thoughts, Bean?

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Truly Understand the Fundamentals and the Path will be so much easier...

    Post Edited (Tom Walker) : 5/24/2006 1:26:53 PM GMT
Sign In or Register to comment.