Those who know better - and the Propeller

Skogsgurra

I have been in this (process control, embedded control and measurement) business for longer than I want to think about. I remember vacuum tubes in controllers for paper machinery. I remember when an integrated opamp was looked upon with great suspicion. And also how transistors had a hard time before being respecatble enough to be allowed to replace relay logic - only to be replaced with TTL and CMOS after another ten years period. And then, the micro-processor came along. And the rest is history.

Every time something new has come into use, there are lots and lots of "Besserwissers" that can tell you how unlikely it is that this new toddler can ever grow up to something useful or respected - or accepted. They have all nodded knowingly - but without any knowledge or visions. Only to see how the toddler grows up, takes over and eventually is replaced by still another toddler - with no hope to be accepted or respected.

Very few people are behind technological break-throughs: Schockley/Bardeen/Brattain (transistor), Jack Kilby (digital IC), Bob Widlar (709), ·Bob Noice/Gordon Moore/Ted Hoff (intel 4004), Thomas Osborn (the HP calculators), Charles 'Chuck' Moore (Forth) and probably a few others that I haven't been exposed to. Ken Olsen (the PDP machines) may be one of those, too.

What these guys (very few ladies there) have done is to work either on their own (Kilby, Osborn, Chuck) or in small groups lead by an enthusiast. The bean counters never had an idea what was happening and when it happened, they started "No, we can't do it that way! It hasn't been proven. No, what happens if? It lacks structure!" And now, one of the more pathetic objections to the Propeller I have ever heard: "You know, NTSC is on its way out. So, it is no good".

I do not understand these guys. What are they trying to prove? Or protect? Do they at all enjoy life?

It is good to see people like the Parallax guys. They are no bean counters. Love that.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔

Graham Stabler

Perhaps the propeller isn't a paradigm shift for all micro-controllers but it is sure a fantastic branch in the evolutionary tree, its unfortunate so many have to turn it into a "which is best" contest especially when they don't understand the chip well enough to comment accurately.

Others just childishly reject the fact they might have to learn something new (spin, boo hoo) or do something different (me want my c compiler and interrupts), even though it is often those people that will find the learning most simple. This is often hidden behind professionalism, "in industry ...."

Whatever else the propeller is another cool and useful thing in the arsenal and that's the main thing!
(tongue in cheek)

Graham

Bergamot

Well look, I love the Propeller, I think it's great.

I can still understand, however, why someone would be hesitant to bet their project (and even their reputation or career) on a chip with one manufacturer, absolutely no substitutes, and such an unusual architecture.

I'm a hobbyist. I won't lose my job if Parallax goes out of business, or raises prices, or can't meet demand. If I would, I might be a little anti-propeller too.

ericball

The Besserwisers are simply playing it safe; probably because they've experienced failures which occurred when a less well understood, previously untried, not widely used technology is implemented. Sometimes the cost of failure or known maintenance costs far outweighs any potential savings. I bet there are still environments and situations where older (or even ancient) technologies are still used because they are well adapted to handling the particular requirements (like tempature extremes, hard vaccuum, high radiation, magnetic flux, or high power/current/voltage).

That being said. I'd think the Propeller would be very attractive to embeded & process control environments due to it's deterministic nature. Of course, it is probably easier to advocate the Propeller for new implementations since it would be difficult / impossible to reuse code developed for different microcontrollers.

And people who critizise NTSC output are missing the point that it is a demonstration of what the Propeller is capable of, not a limitation.

deSilva

I think I understand well the point collegues of mine are making: They shortly investigated into alternatives for the Prop and found some alternatives more appropriate in terms of price/performance ratio, reliability, saved learning effort, power consumption, whatever..... even computing power (!)

Which simply means the Propeller is not superior to all other devices on the market. Which however does not mean the Propellor is not good for anything. In other words, trivial as it may sound: There are many applications for 8051 or TMS32 chips and a few, where the Prop is the better choice.

The prop - in my oppinion - is not a technological break through of any kind. There is a very specific amount of silicon you can use for a given amount of money, and the propeller uses in another way as the rest of the world. However there is a more than 30 year long history of parallel computing, some theoretical and during the last 20 years much very practical, based on microprocessors. This however has not always become obvious to the garden variety of an EE. The "Top 500" are designed by a very selected circle....

What is great - and the consequences of which are very unclear - is the fact, that Chip Gracey has made available some simple kind of parallel computing to everybody for a pocket money!

Breaking it down to numbers, it is OPPD ("One Processor Per Dollar"). Note that everybody could have done this in the past few years by simply connecting 8, 80, or 800 PIC or AVR chips; but few had done it, having no real reason for it. But some of you might be even aware of the www.oopic.com project.

But now you have 8 processors, you simply can't get rid of them so you hav to THINK, how to use them best!

Bob the Builder on a C64

The propellor is strong and powerfull, but only if programmed wisely and or connectied to proper components allowing the best of work. The oopic is the opposite of that. However if adding processors to the chip and using 4 prop chips, you would have insane strength compared to that oopic. But how the prop starts is fairly weak against it by lack of any components.

Still, the propellor chip could be used as a insanely strong force however·only if you used 8 or more propellor chips in sync with SRAM's or·SD's·would you have the ultimate machine

You know, it could be done to make the propellor chip run windows XP in high resolution with 16 bit color!

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Realize that I am really a mad scientist··· and


Don't forget it!

http://raydillon.com/Images/Illustration/GameArt/WildIsle/WildIsle-Ink-ScientistClose.jpg

·

Gadgetman

Skogsgurra, you forgot a VERY important name in your list...

Ada Lovelace.

One thing to remember about the Propeller(with PASM/Spin) is that it is a TOOL, not a cure-all or the solution to the world's problems.

I usually say that you must 'Examine the task at hand, and only THEN decide which tools to use'.
(This rule is valid for anything from the smallest homebrew to the largest data warehouse systems)
Most projects where the tools have been decided on before the tasks have been fully understood tends to flounder or crash.

And yes, that means that the Propeller may not always be the optimal solution for any given project.
(Sometimes a BS1 can do the task, the BS2p40 may be called into action, or... well... you need a Linux-based SBC)

'Oldtimers' who distrusts the Propeller see 'yet another unproven toolset to clutter up their options'.

The best way to deal with it is NOT to 'evangelize' or attempting to cram the manuals down their throats, but to let them approach it on their own.
Bring a Demo board to the lab and hook it up with a TV and a couple of peripherals that is often used. Program it to read the peripherals continously and present it on the screen, then leave the programming IDE open and the manuals by the desk.
If they are REAL techies they won't be able to resist the temptation to fiddle with it...
(Poking the sensors to verify that the readouts are real, then disconnecting the programming-cable to see that the PC isn't really doing the work, and finally looking at your code... Which you've deliberately left easy to read but 'less than perfect'... )

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

Skogsgurra

Hi,

I was thinking about her. But I am not so sure. Her impact on SW society came long after she died. And mostly because DOD needed a catchy name for their new brainchild. But, of course, she is important. As was Charles Babbage. And Blaise Pascal and a few more people.

My point is that it is good to see that individuals still can (given the necessary support) do important work on their own.

The Propeller is overkill for almost anything I need to do. But the low cost, the low current consumption, the flexibility, the incredibly competent counters and the predictable behaviour has made all other alternatives less, less, less interesting.

It probably also has something to do with love. There's a lesson for you, Tina Turner.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔

Forrest

Speaking of pioneer's in the electronics/computer fields, I think Grace Hopper should be on that list

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper

rjo_

Graham,

If you include the entire package... including business philosophy, information presentation, technical innovation, etc. I think we might be seeing a paradigm shift with a global impact. This mix actually creates the potential for development in places that don't normally have inside toilets.

Rich

Skogsgurra

It has already had a deep impact on my work.

A line of instruments that I had been thinking about for many years, but never got implemented more than as half still-born prototypes, is now taking off. One after one.

That wouldn't have happened if I hadn't met the Propeller.

I have built (am building) my hardware so that I can plug in different devices like A/D and such in a set of sockets and then assign I/O on the Prop to suit the configuration at hand. One common 3x16 alpha-numeric LCD display and four general (soft) buttons makes this platform incredibly universal.

And, the SW part of it is no work any more. Just plain drooling fun.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔