[amsat-bb] Re: Programming language recommendation?
ko6th_greg at hotmail.com
Sun Oct 5 19:43:54 PDT 2008
How does the Picaxe compare to the BASIC Stamp line from Parallax? I've built several Stamp projects, and they were very easy to deal with.
> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 23:07:38 -0300
> From: ve9qrp at gmail.com
> To: gordonjcp at gjcp.net
> CC: amsat-bb at amsat.org
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Programming language recommendation?
> I appreciate Gordon's expert opinion below. If you'd like something
> that is very, very simple to work with in order to explore the world
> of PIC programming, you should also consider the picaxe line of
> products. These comprise PIC chips with a basic interpreter on
> board. The wiring for the programmer is very simple, and the toolchain
> is easy because it removes the compiling stage.
> While I'm trying to move on to the atmel line, using this inexpensive
> I still find the picaxe chips dead handy for all sorts of little
> jobs because so much is built into them.
> As for computer programming, I would encourage someone returning to
> this practice to consider adding one of the cross-platform scripting
> languages to his or her arsenal. Ruby and Python are both good
> 73, Bruce
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Gordon JC Pearce MM3YEQ
>> JW wrote:
>>> Along the same line: anyone on here doing PIC programming or know of a
>>> list for beginners? From CW keyers to Antenna control units and
>>> everything in between it looks like it would be fun to program some
>>> gadgets for around the shack...
>> Without lighting up a PIC/AVR flamewar, I've pretty much entirely moved
>> from PIC to AVR. The hardware is generally two to four times faster for
>> the same clock rate (gets more done per cycle) and is easier to program
>> - you can make up an AVR programmer for the parallel port that's
>> basically three resistors!
>> Furthermore, the toolchain is much better for AVR - Microchip are only
>> interested in pushing their frankly dreadful Windows-only MPLAB
>> software, while Atmel actively contribute to avr-gcc, a cross-platform
>> toolchain based on the industry standard gcc. The whole AVR community
>> seems a lot better than the PIC one, and I say that as a long-standing
>> user of PIC microcontrollers.
>> In short, PIC is great, but the community isn't as strong and the tools
>> are rubbish. On the other hand, Microchip are always more than happy to
>> sample parts and their customer support is *excellent*.
>> AVR is technically superior in pretty much every way, with an excellent
>> community. Unfortunately Atmel's tech support are a dour bunch who are
>> often hard to get good information out of, and not great at sending samples.
>> I haven't tried the ARM-based AVRs or the MIPS-based PICs yet, though.
>> Those might be something to tempt me back to Microchip, if MIPS is as
>> good as I remember it ;-)
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
>> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
See how Windows Mobile brings your life together—at home, work, or on the go.
More information about the AMSAT-BB