PICputer

[dipmicro]

I run into this project sometimes ago:

http://picputer.com/

It's a compact PIC computer with line editor, assembler/disassembler and BASIC interpreter all in small little PIC. All you need is hyperterminal and you prototype away.

I would like to know if I am the only one interested in such technology (project appears to be dormant) or anyone knows about similar commercially successful projects.

 

[3v0]

Could be the project is stale because it does not offer anything new.

In the early 80's Zilog came out with a Z8 that had a BASIC interpreter in ROM. Small SBCs using this were common. There days there is the PICAXE.

You can also take the bootloader route. Develop in MPLAB and download via bootloader to PIC16F and PIC18F chips.

 

[Leftyretro]

Could be the project is stale because it does not offer anything new.

In the early 80's Zilog came out with a Z8 that had a BASIC interpreter in ROM. Small SBCs using this were common. There days there is the PICAXE.

You can also take the bootloader route. Develop in MPLAB and download via bootloader to PIC16F and PIC18F chips.

Yes I had one of those Basic Z8 chips and thought it was pretty good idea, but it wasn't a commercial success I guess and not enough hobbyist to keep it going. Intel also had a imbedded basic interupter, 8751? I think they sold the rights to Micromint and they still sell it.

I do think the Picaxe is a good follow-on product designed with the educational and hobbyist as the primary customer and they are continuing to develope the concept and releasing newer better versions as we speak

Lefty

 

[dipmicro]

Could be the project is stale because it does not offer anything new.

In the early 80's Zilog came out with a Z8 that had a BASIC interpreter in ROM. Small SBCs using this were common. There days there is the PICAXE.

You can also take the bootloader route. Develop in MPLAB and download via bootloader to PIC16F and PIC18F chips.

Those were the days ...

Looking at PICAXE - it does not bring anything new. Bootloaders have been around for even longer than built-in interpreters. What is the big deal about PICAXE really, am I missing something ?

All these Basic stamp copycats work this way:

EDIT PROGRAM -> COMPILE -> UPLOAD -> EXECUTE

Regardless if the code uploaded to the PIC is a machine code or intermediate bytecode (Basic stamp).

Built-in interpreters have also interactive mode:

EDIT COMMAND -> RUN IT

Practical example: say I have a routine for sending CAN frame and I am troubleshooting something, say a robot controlled by CAN message. With first method I am going to have to compile and upload my script for every change. With interpreter I just type in hyperterminal:

SENDCAN AABBCCDDEEFF0001 <ENTER>

Of course the routine above is made up for explanation purpose.

 

[Hero999]

It looks a good project for a computer science student but I can't see any other reason for it other than education.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Looking at PICAXE - it does not bring anything new. Bootloaders have been around for even longer than built-in interpreters. What is the big deal about PICAXE really, am I missing something ?

The 'big deal' with a PICAXE is really it's price! - it's VERY, VERY cheap, yet includes a full BASIC interpreter, which interprets the code from it's internal EEPROM data memory - which makes it fairly slow, and have very limited program space. But for the money they are incredible! - commonly used in schools, where the performance doesn't matter, and the price does!.

Personally I've never used one, and have no intention of ever doing so, but you've got to admire it!.

 

[Sceadwian]

Maybe it'll supercede the basic stamp. Massivly over priced under power pic modules.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Maybe it'll supercede the basic stamp. Massivly over priced under power pic modules.

The STAMP has historical momentum - and also much greater program space, due to it's external EEPROM. Presumably the PICAXE came about as a direct result of the STAMP, and the various (poor) free clones available.

 

[upand_at_them]

Maybe it'll supercede the basic stamp. Massivly over priced under power pic modules.

Not likely. I applaud the PICAXE people for their product, but they can't compete with the STAMP in program space.

I'd like to see an open source version of this. And would be willing to help out. It's not rocket science to write an interpreter that executes code from an external EEPROM.

Mike

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Not likely. I applaud the PICAXE people for their product, but they can't compete with the STAMP in program space.

I'd like to see an open source version of this. And would be willing to help out. It's not rocket science to write an interpreter that executes code from an external EEPROM.

There are already two HEX files available for a simple STAMP type clone running from internal EEPROM - neither provide the source code, and neither has been supported for many years.

 

[dipmicro]

yet includes a full BASIC interpreter, which interprets the code from it's internal EEPROM data memory

But that is original STAMP idea, which I completely agree - is very overpriced. But let's not forget stamps were introduced with 16Cxx parts and required several external parts to make the idea useful.

I'd like to see an open source version of this. And would be willing to help out. It's not rocket science to write an interpreter that executes code from an external EEPROM.

Running the programs from EEPROM is overrated since Microchip introduced self-programmable parts. But if there is an interpreting VM, it can take the data from anywhere including RAM, FLASH, EEPROM, external flash disk, ...

I think PICputer could be a great candidate for an opensource platform for embedded PIC-puting But the author won't respond.

 

[Leftyretro]

I'm by no means a 'brand fan' but after considering and rejecting Stamp products for years because of their high start-up price, that when I saw how simple and cheap one could try out microcontrollers via the Picaxe product line, I jumped. Keep in mind that there will probably always be a market for a simple Basic programmed microcontroller system for people that just want to utilize micros as a support component for their projects. Not everyone wants or needs to go the ASM/C/compiler/program burner route just to get started, but just need a simple programmable solution for their projects. Interpreted Basic will never have the power or speed of the more powerful languages, nor get the most out of the underlining chip capablity, but many hobbyist applications don't require that maximum capablility.

The Picaxe system with their passive serial cable design, Nice programming system with includes a simulator, debugger and various wizard aids is quite impressive for it's price, FREE! Again the advance microcontroller folks will always find fault with the speed and capacity of this system but it is capable of solving real solutions as well as being a friendly path for and easy learning curve. Their latest X1 chips have much expanded program capacity where the 28X1 can now hold 1,000 programming steps and run at 20mhz, not bad for a under $10 chip It's an active product line with updated software, bug reporting and with a chip family spanning simple 8 pin to 40 pin Pics.

Again I don't want to sound like a brand fan but the Picaxe product is a pretty impressive offering for it's intended market. I'm sure the Stamp product line will evolve and perhaps one up their competition in time, all to the advantage of us customers. Until then there is no simpler and cheaper way to get started then the Picaxe. Hardest thing is finding distributers for this product as I belive there was only one US and one or two Canadian firms importing this product line from GB. Hopefully that will improve in time.

Lefty

 

[blueroomelectronics]

Not likely. I applaud the PICAXE people for their product, but they can't compete with the STAMP in program space.

I'd like to see an open source version of this. And would be willing to help out. It's not rocket science to write an interpreter that executes code from an external EEPROM.

Mike

What's wrong with the $99 PICBASIC Compiler? Costs what a couple of BASIC Stamps do, you can program as many PICs as you want in BASIC with more program space and much much fast program speed.

OR PICBASIC Pro demo 32 lines of code for free on a handful of PICs

OR Swordfish for the 18F series, great demo version too.

Any of those solutions are superiour to BASIC Stamps & PICAxes.

 

[dipmicro]

What's wrong with the $99 PICBASIC Compiler? Costs what a couple of BASIC Stamps do, you can program as many PICs as you want in BASIC with more program space and much much fast program speed.

PICBASIC is only a compiler, you still need a programmer (or chip with preloaded bootloader) PICAXE seems to be the whole 9 yards.

The cost is a tricky thing too: If I purchase BASIC compiler for $99 plus programmer for $36 and make 6 projects altogether (one every two months) - I spent approx $22.50 + cost of microcontroller per project. Seems that PICAXE is cheaper

But I did not want to preach PICAXE but PICputer. Nobody, nobody is really seeing the value in that model ??? Same as PICAXE just compiler is built-in.

 

[3v0]

But I did not want to preach PICAXE but PICputer. Nobody, nobody is really seeing the value in that model ??? Same as PICAXE just compiler is built-in.

There are several reasons I do not care for the PICputer.

PicPuter is fully Linux, Macintosh, Windows, Solaris, Amiga, C64, compatible. The only external requirement is a Terminal Program.

The ICD2 clones (hello INCHWORM) would be useless as debuggers. That alone is enough to "just say no".

The entire development system lives on the PIC. That sounds too spartan for my taste. I would like to see MPLAB's editor come up to the level of MS Visual Studio.

 

[dipmicro]

The ICD2 clones (hello INCHWORM) would be useless as debuggers. That alone is enough to "just say no".

The same argument is true for PICAXE. The debugger tool is only useful if there is no better means to troubleshoot the code. IAP (In Application Programming) - e.g. in PICAXE or PICputer, may be sometimes better tool than ICSP debugger.

The entire development system lives on the PIC. That sounds too spartan for my taste. I would like to see MPLAB's editor come up to the level of MS Visual Studio.

Don't forget that BASIC built into PIC provides practically very flexible serial communication protocol allowing to bootload and execute any arbitrary command (or code), retrieve (PRINT) and change any variable (PI=3.14) and memory location, place breakpoints into the program, change any line of BASIC program and resume (GOTO). I can actually imagine nice Visual Studio plugin connecting to PICputer.

On the top of that you can use hyperterminal to talk to PICputer. Try to do that with PICAXE.

IMHO if the project kept going, there would be better tools by now matching or surpassing BASIC stamp and clones.

What really intrigues me is the possibility to extend PIC applications written in compiled C with subroutines accessible from the interpreter. HP invented a crude language called SCPI (say skipi). It looks like this: MEAS:VOLT? Agilent, NI, Tektronix and others support it in their devices, is pretty much industry standard. PICputer is way more powerful than SCPI.

 

[dipmicro]

I am starting to realize why this project died.

Maybe a different name would provide different mindset; instead of PICputer try BasicLoader = fancy bootloader which understands BASIC syntax and accepts assembly mnemonics.

 

[blueroomelectronics]

PICBASIC is only a compiler, you still need a programmer (or chip with preloaded bootloader) PICAXE seems to be the whole 9 yards.

The cost is a tricky thing too: If I purchase BASIC compiler for $99 plus programmer for $36 and make 6 projects altogether (one every two months) - I spent approx $22.50 + cost of microcontroller per project. Seems that PICAXE is cheaper

But I did not want to preach PICAXE but PICputer. Nobody, nobody is really seeing the value in that model ??? Same as PICAXE just compiler is built-in.

A compiler will beat an interpreter everytime, in both program size and execution speed. A compiler will get patched and upgraded as needed and many support true debuggers.

The PICputer looks more like an abandonware than anything else. If the author wanted something new he might have made his source code available. Then it might have a chance. To unlock each he wants $20, not sure if that's per chip or unlimited licence. The syntax is primitive compared to any compiler currently available and it's still an interpreter.

Here's a comparison of Stamp vs PICBASIC
**broken link removed**

There are free programming languages for PICs like JAL and if you really want some power on the cheap use assembler or Swordfish BASIC and a $36 ICD2 or even a cheap JDM programmer.

Swordfishs free demo with its 200 variable limitation is many times more powerful than even the best BASIC Stamp.

 

[3v0]

Most of this is a 20 year step backwards. It looks like the author already ran it up the flagpole and it flopped.

I am not sure how large the marked is for single chip or SBC computers with basic interp onboard. Guessing mostly hobby sales, a few one offs. They were a great idea when you could not touch a microprocessor development system for less then a few grand. Microchip gives the software away and you sell the hardware for $36.

The debugger tool is only useful if there is no better means to troubleshoot the code. IAP (In Application Programming) - e.g. in PICAXE or PICputer, may be sometimes better tool than ICSP debugger.

To get better debugging then the ICD2 you would need to buy a emulator or a logic analyzer. JTAG and similar similar forms of ICD are good enough that they cut into sales of the above mentioned equipment.

Don't forget that BASIC built into PIC provides practically very flexible serial communication protocol allowing to bootload and execute any arbitrary command (or code), retrieve (PRINT) and change any variable (PI=3.14) and memory location, place breakpoints into the program, change any line of BASIC program and resume (GOTO). I can actually imagine nice Visual Studio plugin connecting to PICputer.

You couild be describing forth which has been around for about 25 years. IIRC it was not difficult to implement BASIC in forth.

PICputer is way more powerful..

Apples and oranges. SCPI is a set of strings that can be issued in any language and understool by test equipment that follow the standard.