Post by thread:[PIC]: Upgrading from the Basic Stamp 2 to the PIC

Kev, I see you learned the subject tag. That is a good first step. :-) But you need to have a colon outside the brackets, like I have done here. I made the same transition you made, from BS2 to PICs. I wasn't interested so much in speed as I was cost. Did you know that a typical PIC is just a few dollars, compared to ~$50 for a stamp. That's a big difference if you want to make more than one of something. There are Basic compilers for the PIC that will let you use statements very similar to what you are used to with the BS2. However, along that way lies danger. Unlike the BS2, you do need have at least a basic (no pun intended) understanding of the hardware, or it will eventually come back and bite you in the ass. I would suggest getting a good book, or using the resources on the web and start in assembly with the requisite blinking light circuit, and move up from there. Once you have "paid your dues" in assembler and understand the hardware, you can "graduate" to a compiled language. I would recommend C over Basic, but that is a personal preference. You also might look at the 877 series. There are several "learning kits" centered around that chip because it is very easy and cheap to do in-circuit debugging with it. That will allow you to step through the code while it is running. That can be a big help when you are getting started. The magazine "Practical Electronics" (published in UK) has a lot of ads for these kinds of kits. They seem to all be from UK companies, but I was able to order one to the US with no worries. Also, you will need to buy a programmer to be able to program the chips. The Warp-13 is pretty popular, and cheap. Good luck! And watch out for Olin. He is our resident bulldog that has a taste for newbies. Alex > {Original Message removed}

Am I the only one out there that sees Assembly as very similar to BASIC? BASIC gives you incredibly simply commands. Do this, add this, go here, go there, etc... That's pretty much Assembly in most architectures. Minus some obvious advantages like function calls w/arguments and basic memory management for variables, you pretty much have an Assembly mindset if you've used BASIC. Nick Veys | spam_OUTnickTakeThisOuTveys.com {Quote hidden}> There are Basic compilers for the PIC that will let you use > statements very similar to what you are used to with the BS2. > However, along that way lies danger. Unlike the BS2, you do > need have at least a basic (no pun intended) understanding of > the hardware, or it will eventually come back and bite you in > the ass. I would suggest getting a good book, or using the > resources on the web and start in assembly with the requisite > blinking light circuit, and move up from there. Once you > have "paid your dues" in assembler and understand the > hardware, you can "graduate" to a compiled language. I would > recommend C over Basic, but that is a personal preference. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

> > Am I the only one out there that sees Assembly as very > similar to BASIC? BASIC gives you incredibly simply commands. > Do this, add this, go here, go there, etc... That's pretty > much Assembly in most architectures. Minus some obvious > advantages like function calls w/arguments and basic memory > management for variables, you pretty much have an Assembly > mindset if you've used BASIC. > Fundamentally, all languages say 'do this. Go here, do that' The main difference between a higher level language like Basic or C and assembler is abstraction. The higher-level languages abstract some of the hardware details so the programmer doesn't have to think about them. Of course, this can be a good or a bad thing, depending. For example, CCS C has the very common C funtion 'printf' which is used to send strings over a serial connection. You set it up with a define that tells the baud rate, tx pin, rx pin, etc. And then it generates the code to do that. When you call it, you just say: print("Hello, world"); If you have an onboard RS232, it used that, otherwise it bit-bangs it. This is an abstraction of hundreds of lines of assembler into one line. Sure, you could create assembler blocks that do that and can be almost as easy to use, but then you are just replicating what the compiler does. This is further abstracted in languages like Java, where not only are the low-level hardware details abstracted, the higher-level OS details are abstracted too into a 'virtual machine' That is how Java can run on any platform (mostly), because it is independent of most any hardware details. Fundamentally, higher level languages allow the programmer to get more work done because they allow him or her to concentrate on the programming problems, and not worry about the underlying hardware details. I know that is heresy to a lot of people in this group, but it is true. It is all about managing complexity. It is easy to manage 2K worth of code. It is a fundamentally different problem to manage 50 million lines of code. Theoretically, something like Windows XP (or Linux, or Word, or <name some big program>) could be written in assembler, but in reality it would be an almost insurmountable task. Alex -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

----- Original Message ----- From: Nick Veys <nickKILLspamVEYS.COM> To: <.....PICLISTKILLspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [PIC]: Upgrading from the Basic Stamp 2 to the PIC family... > Am I the only one out there that sees Assembly as very similar to BASIC? > BASIC gives you incredibly simply commands. Do this, add this, go here, > go there, etc... That's pretty much Assembly in most architectures. > Minus some obvious advantages like function calls w/arguments and basic > memory management for variables, you pretty much have an Assembly > mindset if you've used BASIC. > Depends on the dialect of BASIC. I agree that some dialects are over simplified and require that the programmer do everything but others incorporate high level features that really do help the programmer. I wont wast bandwidth here but just to peek your curiosity, XCSB has 8, 16, 32 bit interger and 32 bit floating point mixed mode math support (this is optimised so that e.g. adding two 16 bit numbers and storing the result in an 8 bit variable actually only performs an 8 bit addition of the least significant 8 bits of the two variables), user defineable functions with formal parameters (prototypes to a C programmer), dead code elimination, function inlining, multitasking and lots of other stuff. Regards Sergio Masci http://www.xcprod.com/titan/XCSB - optimising structured PIC BASIC compiler -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

Kev, Your exactly the type of person I wrote my book for. "Programming PIC Microcontrollers With PicBasic" takes a user through all the PicBasic commands and then into project examples. From flashing an LED to building a servo robot. I can and have written in PIC assembly but I prefer the simplicity of Basic. I've tried all the different Basic Compilers but only a few maintain the Basic Stamp command format. PicBasic was the first "Stamp to PIC" compiler and was written to compile BS1 code. Then the PicBasic PRO compiler was released to convert BS2 and BS1 code along with added commands to use the features of the PIC. PicBasic Pro is the most popular but also the most expensive. Others have followed. MBasic Pro by BasicMicro uses the same Basic Stamp/PicBasic command format but adds other features such as an in-circuit debugger built in so you can step through your Basic code. It costs about the same as PicBasic Pro. Basic Micro then released the Atom modules and Chips. The Atom modules have the same footprint as the Basic Stamp BS2 but use the MBasic Pro compiler as the software. Best of all they give the compiler away for free to download. The catch is, the compiler only works with their custom bootloader PIC16F876 and 16F877 Atom chips. They cost about 2.5 times the normal PIC price but give you Pro level Basic commands for all the features of the PIC. The Atom gives you the easy programming of the Stamp with a module that has much more memory and much more speed (about 12 times faster) than a BS2. Plus you get the in-circuit debugger so you can single step your code or run to a breakpoint. You can also watch variables and registers change. It also has floating point math. Many people upgrade from BS2 to Atom and then eventually buy PicBasic Pro or MBasic Pro so they can program any off the shelf PIC. The Pro compilers also let you insert assembly code so these are full featured compilers that can be very powerful. You'll never want to use a Stamp again once you learn the full capabilities of the PIC. Now a little plug: I also have a development board based on the Atom at my website called the BasicBoard. It has an LCD, LEDs, switches, POT and servo style headers for those just getting started. It has a socketed Atom 40 pin PIC chip at its core so it you can be removed and built into a permanent project. The board also has a port connected to the PIC C6,C7 pins so the BasicBaord can be programmed by any .hex file if the Atom chip is replaced by a bootloader PIC. You can check it out at: http://www.elproducts.com --- "Kev Pearce (kevp.com)" <EraseMEemail.mespam_OUTTakeThisOuTKEVP.COM> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Hi all, > > I've been working for a while with the Basic Stamp II and now find my > self needing more horsepower. > I was wondering if there is anyone out there that has moved from BS2 > to PIC or has experience of transistion and could give any pointers > or advice. It would be nice if there was that magic book entitled: > "Moving from BS2 to PIC in two easy steps", but I guess there's more > to it than that!! In fact I'm sure there is! > > I'm not knocking the BS2, it's great introduction to > microcontrollers, but I looking for my data logger application to run > at 100Hz rather than 10Hz... > > Any pointers or adivce will be greatfully recieved. > > Cheers very much all > > > Kev/. > http://www.KevP.com > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different > ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details. ===== Chuck Hellebuyck Electronic Products chuckspam_OUTelproducts.com **** Home of the BasicBoard Development Platform********* Great for learning, teaching and developing electronic, programmable robotics and other embedded applications. Starter packages from $149.95. http://www.elproducts.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

> -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Hellebuyck [@spam@chelleb1KILLspamYAHOO.COM] > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 2:47 PM > To: KILLspamPICLISTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU > Subject: Re: [PIC]: Upgrading from the Basic Stamp 2 to the > PIC family... > > > > I can and have written in PIC assembly but I prefer the > simplicity of Basic. I've tried all the different Basic > Compilers but only a few maintain the Basic Stamp command > format. PicBasic was the first "Stamp to PIC" compiler and > was written to compile BS1 code. Then the PicBasic PRO > compiler was released to convert BS2 and BS1 code along with > added commands to use the features of the PIC. > Pardon me while I interrupt here. It certainly helps with transitioning from the BS2->Pic to be able to use the same syntax language. However, I want to caution Kev not to neccesarily get tied down to the legacy of his BS2 days. There are lots of other languages available, all with different features/benefits/quirks/whatever. There is nothing magic and holy about Parallax's implementation of Basic. Also, in my experience with software, programs designed for newbies are almost diametrically opposed to programs that an experience person would want. This was my experience with PCB layout software. At first I wanted something easy to learn and quick, but as I progressed I grew to hate it, and graduated to something more complex that would have been overwhelming if I started with it. Programming languages can be the same way. (which is why it is awful to teach Java as a first language) You don't want to be one of those people slavishly devoted to one language because that is what they started with. Go visit a COBOL programmer if you want to see what I mean. :-) Alex -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

Try http://www.voti.nl/e_index.html It is called JAL, short for "just another language" I have only recently started looking at high level languages for the Pic's. This one is a freebie for us low budget operators. Other than cost, my complaint about ASM coding is mainly cumbersome control structures-- Lacking IF/Then, While, Repeat/Until, etc. JAL solves that while retaining the ability to through in a single ASM instruction or a block of them. It generates .hex and .asm files from its native .jal files. It might be a little slow on some older machines, I don't know. I recently upgraded and every thing is fast for a while. It is a little awkward in my environment, it requires a command window and a command line entry of Jal "filename" "-options" I have been using the project board from "Picbook.com" successfully. There may be undiscovered dragons, but so far I am very impressed with JAL! John Ferrell (Running in backup mode) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Kilpatrick" <RemoveMEAlexKTakeThisOuTHCITRAINING.COM> To: <spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [PIC]: Upgrading from the Basic Stamp 2 to the PIC family... -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.

If you've already programmed a Basic Stamp then definitely Basic is easier to learn than C because you've learned 80% of the commands. I can only go by my experience and I'm not a software guru like many on this list. I find Basic in the Parallax Stamp format very easy to learn and use. That's why so many beginners with little programming and electrical background can produce some amazing projects with a Stamp or Basic Compiler. I tried learning C but I personally find PicBasic and MBasic much easier to use. If your writing software for a living then I highly recommend learning C. Industry wants people who know C but I am seeing more and more job listings that include PicBasic and many articles in circuit cellar and other industry publications showing examples in PicBasic so acceptance of Embedded Basic is growing. I have a friend who swears by C. We've written programs side by side, Basic vs C. We both completed the software at the same time, both ran equally fast, both accomplished the task. So it just becomes a matter of your choice. --- andre abelian <RemoveMEengelecTakeThisOuTEARTHLINK.NET> wrote: {Quote hidden}> Chuck, > > I checked your web site looks pretty good but I have > Question for you. > What is the major reason for using basic not C ? > Is it maybe easier to learn? > > Andre > > > > {Original Message removed}

Thanks for the input everyone. It looks like PicBasic Pro is the proper way to go... I was more concerned with the way the PIC implemented commands like serialout, pulse etc, but it does seem very similar. After all the Stamp is just a PIC with an onboard interpreter and the PIC lets the software o nthe PC do the compliling into its own code - at least that's my very basic understanding anyhow!!! But I don't mean to start a debate on how they work!!! I'm downloading the PicBasic demo as I type. I was hoping to use items I can easily source in the UK, Maplin do stock some PICs. My project is a car engine data logger. I was sondering if anyone else had done one (based on ECU signal inputs) and we could compare notes... Cheers all Kev/. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hellebuyck" <chelleb1EraseME.....YAHOO.COM> To: <EraseMEPICLISTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [PIC]: Upgrading from the Basic Stamp 2 to the PIC family... {Quote hidden}> If you've already programmed a Basic Stamp then definitely Basic is > easier to learn than C because you've learned 80% of the commands. > > I can only go by my experience and I'm not a software guru like many on > this list. I find Basic in the Parallax Stamp format very easy to learn > and use. That's why so many beginners with little programming and > electrical background can produce some amazing projects with a Stamp or > Basic Compiler. > I tried learning C but I personally find PicBasic and MBasic much > easier to use. > > If your writing software for a living then I highly recommend learning > C. Industry wants people who know C but I am seeing more and more job > listings that include PicBasic and many articles in circuit cellar and > other industry publications showing examples in PicBasic so acceptance > of Embedded Basic is growing. > > I have a friend who swears by C. We've written programs side by side, > Basic vs C. We both completed the software at the same time, both ran > equally fast, both accomplished the task. So it just becomes a matter > of your choice. > > --- andre abelian <RemoveMEengelecEraseMEEraseMEEARTHLINK.NET> wrote: > > Chuck, > > > > I checked your web site looks pretty good but I have > > Question for you. > > What is the major reason for using basic not C ? > > Is it maybe easier to learn? > > > > Andre > > > > > > > > {Original Message removed}

Sounds like this product.... http://www.davisnet.com/drive/products/drive_product.asp?pnum=8220 To bad they won't share how they did it :( Tim >>> RemoveMEemail.mespam_OUTKILLspamKEVP.COM 08/08/03 05:17PM >>> Thanks for the input everyone. It looks like PicBasic Pro is the proper way to go... I was more concerned with the way the PIC implemented commands like serialout, pulse etc, but it does seem very similar. After all the Stamp is just a PIC with an onboard interpreter and the PIC lets the software o nthe PC do the compliling into its own code - at least that's my very basic understanding anyhow!!! But I don't mean to start a debate on how they work!!! I'm downloading the PicBasic demo as I type. I was hoping to use items I can easily source in the UK, Maplin do stock some PICs. My project is a car engine data logger. I was sondering if anyone else had done one (based on ECU signal inputs) and we could compare notes... Cheers all Kev/. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hellebuyck" <RemoveMEchelleb1TakeThisOuTspamYAHOO.COM> To: <EraseMEPICLISTspamspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [PIC]: Upgrading from the Basic Stamp 2 to the PIC family... {Quote hidden}> If you've already programmed a Basic Stamp then definitely Basic is > easier to learn than C because you've learned 80% of the commands. > > I can only go by my experience and I'm not a software guru like many on > this list. I find Basic in the Parallax Stamp format very easy to learn > and use. That's why so many beginners with little programming and > electrical background can produce some amazing projects with a Stamp or > Basic Compiler. > I tried learning C but I personally find PicBasic and MBasic much > easier to use. > > If your writing software for a living then I highly recommend learning > C. Industry wants people who know C but I am seeing more and more job > listings that include PicBasic and many articles in circuit cellar and > other industry publications showing examples in PicBasic so acceptance > of Embedded Basic is growing. > > I have a friend who swears by C. We've written programs side by side, > Basic vs C. We both completed the software at the same time, both ran > equally fast, both accomplished the task. So it just becomes a matter > of your choice. > > --- andre abelian <RemoveMEengelecKILLspamEARTHLINK.NET> wrote: > > Chuck, > > > > I checked your web site looks pretty good but I have > > Question for you. > > What is the major reason for using basic not C ? > > Is it maybe easier to learn? > > > > Andre > > > > > > > > {Original Message removed}