From: "Frank Bemelman"
Subject: Re: Basic Stamp vs Pic processors
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 22:11:59 +0200
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
Organization: EuroNet Internet
NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Oct 2002 20:13:11 GMT
"Chuck Simmons" schreef in bericht
> Jim wrote:
> > Is there any relationship between what I can do (other than cost)
> > the Basic Stamp and any number of Pic's?
> > What I mean is that I feel I need to come up to speed in hobby hardware
> > design by using programmable chips. I don't presently own any Basic
> > and haven't done any Pic programming, although I have used Pics in
> > projects....I've been able, so far, to get hold of the HEX code and have
> > someone else load it into the chip.
> > I do programming in Quickbasic, but no assembler, but I have
> > PicBasic in case I want to go that route. I REALLY don't want to learn
> > new language at my age for something that I will just be using
> > occassionally.
> > I see on the web a good bit of BS2 code for the Basic Stamp for projects
> > am interested in. Is this code portable over to Pics in any way? I
> > wouldn't mind investing in Stamp stuff to do some development and
> > breadboarding, but wouldn't want to buy a Basic Stamp to go into every
> > project I build.
> I don't know squat about PIC but I would say that you should use native
> tools. By native, I mean tools specific to the processor and its I/O
> scheme. I'm an old fart too and don't like to learn new computer
> languages but I would have to be 90 years older than God to let that
> stand in my way. Look a little closer at PicBasic. Basic is Basic (sort
> of), so learning PicBasic should not be too much trouble.
> You may not wish to do assembly language at all. I've done a lot of
> assembly over the years and I still have to be retrained after coffee
> breaks. I'm not sure that language makes much difference to the
> readability of code. I've seen hopeless spaghetti code written in just
> about every language including Basic. I personally won't use Basic. At
> the best of times, it is even more ambiguous than Fortran which is an
> incredible feat. Still, if you know it, leverage on it.
> BTW, "structured Basic" is an oxymoron.
'Modern' basics don't use linenumbers, so you write something
like 'gosub myfunction' etc. I think it can be as structured
as you want it to be. You are right about the spaghetticode,
which tells more about the programmer than the language. OTH,
nothing wrong with the goto statement, which is used far too
*less* by programmers that have between, eh, 2-4 yrs of
experience. Ditto for setjmp() etc. But I'm drifting off.
I think the OP should investigate that PicBasic he mentions, so
he can use the PIC's he already has. I know that the first generation
of basicstamps used a PIC too. I once used one at home, to control
my gardenlights. Very easy to use. The later basicstamp2 uses a
scenix/ubicom processor IIRC. This is a *very* fast processor, so even
with an interpreted tokenized basic, and running plain stupid 'unstructured'
basiccode it should do miracles, I'd guess. It must be much faster
than the first basicstamp, but perhaps comparable to any PIC running
Whether these PIC's or 'Stamps' are fit for their task, also depends
a lot on the programmer's skills.
(remove 'x' & .invalid when sending email)