difference between basic stamp and picaxe

hippy

hippy

Ex-Staff (retired)
Dippy said:
I'm certainly not going to give a free advert for options - others can, and I'm sure it's very impressive, but , sorry, I think its a touch disrespectful to this Forum.
Click to expand...
I know how you mean and it's a fine line to walk. I'd certainly say "PICAXE is %$@&, use XYZZY instead" is over the line and it is a forum for promoting as well as supporting PICAXE use. While some made aware of alternatives may desert the PICAXE forever, if they become good engineers they will still respect it for what it is and see it as a valuable and useful tool, branch out and expand rather than truly desert, use it where it fits. If they don't, it's no great loss, they'd leave it eventually anyway.

I don't think it's realistic for this forum to be PICAXE or Rev-Ed only although that obviously is where the focus should be. Accepting that, I think that it is reasonable to offer best advice if one can without being detrimental to PICAXE or Rev-Ed wherever possible.

I see my self-appointed role here as primarily helping people along with PICAXE but also helping those who may have outgrown the PICAXE make wise decisions. We cannot keep people tied to the PICAXE nest, all we can do is keep the community thriving while it's here and make their experience useful and enjoyable so they don't forget it and will consider it an option no matter where they end up.
 
D

Dippy

Moderator
No, of course I appreciate and unerstand what you are saying. People move on, absolutely; and naturally there is going to be discussion. That's fair enough.

I just feel, out of courtesy as much as anything, that questions/answers about what is the next grade up should be kept to PMs?

If I were searching for something for my first forray into microcontrollers I would get onto this Forum as a Guest and have a look around. If I saw numerous threads saying such and such is better then off I'd go. And a novice would not understand the complexities that 'old lags' do - and go and buy something (I could name several) that require a lot more effort, money and brains. Maybe I'm just old fashioned and don't want to get into the semantics of 'better'. And, as we all know, this is about the 100th time that threads have meandered onto this subject :)
 
hippy

hippy

Ex-Staff (retired)
I agree the subject does arise on a fairly regular basis. Maybe what's needed is to be open about that, produce a FAQ which details the options ( all of them ) and gives the pro's and con's of each in a fair and balanced way, then we can just point people towards that and have done with it ?

Perhaps it's not something which can be hosted here and equally it's not something any individual could probably craft and keep fairly balanced, not least that it would be quite a mountain of work to create.

If someone could provide a critique of what there is across the whole range of hardware and software I'm sure it would be something useful for a very large number of people.
 
R

rigidigital

Senior Member
Boot Loader

So if,
Rev Ed has loaded their own BASIC interpreter software into a PIC then is that a similar process where pics can be programmed with C# ,java and others ? re: thinking of the muvium site!
 
W

westaust55

Moderator
Hey rigid,

Are you interested in the PICAXE as a family of BASIC interpreter based PICS (which is what this forum is about) or just search in general?

You throw a question in on PICAXE versus STAMPs, and after 43 posts by others, some clearly answering your question and others moving off topic, you don't even acknowledge the responses but throw in another question not even specifically related to this forum.

Suggest you do some searching of you own on Google for Tiny C or Tiny Java or other Tiny type interpreters/compilers for PIC's.
 
Last edited:
N

nbw

Senior Member
LOL I've heard that C'ers can sometimes be a little snobbish towards their 'poorer' PICAXE cousins :) When I need to build an application that can't be run on a 28X1 or X2 then I'll consider embarking on the curve.
 
D

Dippy

Moderator
I had a quick look at the muvium site. It told me slightly more than nothing, so I can't answer your question. And I'm not really interested anyway.

I'll leave it to others, if they can be bothered, to tell you the differences between various bootloaders. Just remember, you CANNOT directly programme a PIC with any high level language. It has to be compiled or tokenised and programming/downloading serial-from-your-PC will require a bootloader of some description or , otherwise, a hardware programmer is needed - which isn't free.

If you want to produce some of your own webpages comparing different processors and/or firmware and/or compilers and IDEs then please do - it would be useful for others. But if you're just going to float some random 'is this better than that' on this Forum then people will get bored...
 
hippy

hippy

Ex-Staff (retired)
Re Bootloader ...

There are two ways to program any micro, by burning an image into it using a hardware programmer specifically designed to do the job or by writing a bootloader program ( burned as described ) which can then program an image sent over a serial or USB connection using a software link rather than needing a hardware programmer.

Some micro's don't support self-programming so cannot use a bootloader and need to have an image loaded using a proper hardware programmer.

The advantage to using a bootloader is that it's cheaper than having to buy a hardware programmer; that can add significantly to the cost of programming a micro if used in small quantity. There are some very cheap programmers for some chips but other chips are quite complicated to program needing more expensive hardware. It is also likely that most bootloaders can support programming in-circuit so the chip doesn't have to be taken out for programming then put back to test which can speed up and simplify development.

The disadvantage is that some chip options cannot be set using a bootloader and hat takes up some space in the chip which is not available for use. User programs may also have to be written to work roud the fact there is a bootloader present; this can sometimes be difficult depending on programming language vendor.

Most micros come blank so need a bootloader programming into them ( there are some exceptions, eg 68HC11 ) and that requires having a programmer to start with or buying the chips through a third party who has programmed the bootloader and paying a value-added cost.

Bootloaders can be used for any image regardless of what programming language is used.

The PICAXE is slightly different to most because the bootoader doesn't program a full image into itself only data (tokens) which represents what the PICAXE program is. It's really a downloader not a bootloader but the terminology is acceptable because of what the process achieves.

Most bootloader writers will take the easy route and use on-chip serial interfaces (UART) when available, but this then usually dictates needing a MAX232 or similar circuit. The PICAXE uses software, bit-banged, serial for bootloading which means just a two resistor interface is needed which is much cheaper and easier to include.
 
D

Dippy

Moderator
There are tons Mike.
Please remember this is a PICAXE Forum.
And you'd have to buy a programmer or ask me nicely for a bootloaded PIC.
 
M

Mike GTN

New Member
Dippy, no problem, I won't ever mention the Picbasic compiler again.
I do also have 8 mixed PICAXE chips need to get on verobard to allow some breadboarding activity.
 
B

boriz

Senior Member
My first foray into the microcontroller world started with PICmicro. I have 3 programming boards of various utility (gathering dust) and lots of software. I built a few things, doing all the programming in PIC Assembler and I too found the experience a little frustrating and time consuming compared to other Assembly language programming I have experienced. So I decided to look around.

Atmel looked promising with a familiar 6502-like command set and excellent performance. But when I saw an article in EPE using a PICAXE 08 to drive a simple 2-drivenwheels+castor robot, with some source code published, I was fascinated.

PICAXE shortcomings like low speed and small RAM are more than made up for by the ease of use and the low cost. The idea-to-program-to-prototype timescale is smaller and more satisfying (no puns please) than any other system I have seen.

Horses for courses indeed. With a little thought, the limitations can often be circumvented, leaving what I consider to be the ultimate education/hobby microcontroller available.

I say do not be shy about mentioning other chips, formats and languages. PICAXE stands on it’s own merit and compares more than favourably with any other equivalent system for it’s intended use.

Unless RevEd get cocky and start hiking the prices, PICAXE will be my system of choice every day, and twice on Sundays, for the foreseeable future.

Go PICAXE! Ra! Ra! Ra! (Etc. Continued on page 94)
 
D

Dippy

Moderator
Yeah, the Tiny Guy has been kicking around for years. Got quite a name in the PIC world. Its just a smaller version of what has been available for even more years and is the usual bootload method. Nout new.

Not useable to PICAXE or Stamp people really... unless they have a full compiler and they have facility to programme a PIC with a bootloader. All of this is the next step. And for some a real headache. This next step requires a lot more knowledge about PICs. And it requires people to read a Microchip Data Sheet - and when most struggle with getting to page 10 of the PICAXE Data Sheet...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top