From: "Richard Haendel"
Subject: Re: Basic Stamp vs Pic processors
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 20:20:53 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 20:20:53 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
If you want to learn quickly, without a steep learning curve, I'd recommend
the Basic Stamp. Not because it's the best by any means, but because it's
easy to understand and simple to grasp. There have been a lot of books
written about it and Parallax, in my opinion, provides excellent support.
By the way, I'm not a twenty year old. In fact, I might even qualify as an
"old fart" (50+). For some reason, though, it hasn't kept me from tackling
ANY new project that has (or may) come along.
Do we really need to practice age discrimination on ourselves?
"Chuck Simmons" wrote in message
> 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.
> ... The times have been,
> That, when the brains were out,
> the man would die. ... Macbeth
> Chuck Simmons firstname.lastname@example.org