Sorry Picaxe but I'm leaving you for someone new

newplumber

Senior Member
tmfkam said:
I love the program simulation of PicAxe (though that doesn;t work for Mac sadly, shame!) it shortens development time massively.
I didn't know it wont work for mac ...i guess i have all ms


IMHO...I understand over time why people would leave this forum for faster/better microcontrollers ...but for me personally ...I will never understand why this forum is not getting
50,000 + hits a day for the amount of help is shown/given...maybe someday I can help change that.
 

MFB

Senior Member
Micropython?

I also find that the BASIC language suits my thought process well but often struggle to get my head around Arduino because I want to have access to ready made libraries for smart sensors ext.

Anyone interested in using a more friendly and readable language than C++, but that also supports the addition of libraries, should consider the version of Python that's optimised for microcontrollers. Probably the easiest way to evaluate MICRPYTHON is to buy a low coat BBC Micro:Bit board and download a copy of the Thonney IDE.
 

tmfkam

Senior Member
I didn't know it wont work for mac ...i guess i have all ms
I use a Mac here at home for development, and at work for writing the software for commercial products. I have been able to persuade PE5 (and to a degree) PE6 to work within a WINE environment allowing me to use them on my Mac, but this is a bit (quite a lot actually) of a faff and often needs restarting. I find that it works very well indeed within a Windows installation under VirtualBox although that requires a Windows licence, a copy of Windows and that I work within Windows - none of which I care for - hence me using Mac(s).

Not being able to use the simulator tends to push me towards another (Wonderful Bovine BASIC) language. As I can't get the simulator to run on my development computers, I don't use it. It is possible to happily write for PicAxe using MacAxePad, and I've written quite a few (some small, some large) programs this way. Yet if the simulator doesn't work, I can't debug any program using the simulator. The IDE for PicAxe doesn't really exist so I may as well use a native PIC and a compiler that compiles to a native .hex file making use of the extra speed and code space.

Whilst I can't be certain that I would always use PicAxe products commercially, if I don't write the code for PicAxe processors due to not being able to take advantage of the simulator, they definitely won't get used in the end product, some other processor will.

Having said all of that, I still love the PicAxe system and do still use it, just nothing like as much as I might if the full IDE (with simulator) ran on my Mac(s).
 

tmfkam

Senior Member
I also find that the BASIC language suits my thought process well but often struggle to get my head around Arduino because I want to have access to ready made libraries for smart sensors ext.
I find Arduino a little harder to get my head around. I placed an order for something some time back and spotted a 'Chinese' Arduino Mini (or something similar) for a ridiculous price. I bought it, downloaded the Arduino IDE (for Mac - obviously) and got as far as writing an LED flashing program for it before putting it to one side in favour of PicAxe/PIC. The advantages of Arduino seem to be it's disadvantages too. I can visualise a PicAxe (or PIC) as a single device, it needs 5V, 0V, programming terminals, the connections I require for it to perform the function I want to use it for and so on, those I can draw on my circuit diagram, solder it all together and so on. With an Arduino I never can quite work out what the processor needs in order to make it work. Does it need a crystal? Does the crystal need padding capacitors or are the built in? How can I program it without a USB interface? Does it need an external reset circuit? All these leave me baffled. With PicAxe, I need a processor, supplies and a resistor. No motherboards, no daughterboards, no buying commercial modules which may not be available in six months time, just the processor. I can get on with my design and make it work. Hopefully!

For the fairly 'simple' applications I have built so far, PicAxe and PIC processors have all the complexities I need. If I have a need for a bigger/faster processor, an ATMEGA won't be my automatic choice, a bigger/faster PIC will be my choice.
 

newplumber

Senior Member
What we really need is a bigger/faster/cleverer PICAXE !.
yes with inputs from you and all the other pros...the new chip would instantly be super clever...then we could ask westy for the speed and bingo! picaxe would have the best chip
for many years ....of course my job would be testing the bullet proof approval rating :)
 

tmfkam

Senior Member
What we really need is a bigger/faster/cleverer PICAXE !.
Now you're talking! Along with a Program Editor that runs on Macs, a compiler that generates native .hex files...

Sorry, I think I drifted off for a minute... I was having a lovely dream too. All these PicAxe chips everywhere... Ah well...
 

crypticfool

New Member
Can't beat pickaxe for low power ops, the arm etal are power mongers unless you put them to sleep between events
 
Last edited:

rs2845

Senior Member
I've resorted to using ChipKit on a Microchip PIC32MX270F256B. Chips are comparable price with PICAXE chips, fit in a breadboard nicely (same form factor as 28X2) and they're 32 bit with much more memory.

Cost me about £20 for a PICKIT3 programmer. Hopefully PICAXE can adopt Chipkit core for future products given it's open source.
 
Last edited:

BESQUEUT

Senior Member
I am using both Picaxes and Teensy :
- Teensy only when Speed is absolutely needed (for example driving thousands of WS2812),
- Picaxe for ease of use everywhere else,
- They talk together via serial, with Picaxe as master (Teensy have time to listen, and answer if needed...)
 
Top