Digisapien
Member
I hate the idea that its dying. I love picaxe chips and I love these products.
Is Picaxe Dead?
- Thread starter Digisapien
- Start date
fernando_g
Senior Member
Why would you think it is dead? I sincerely would love to listen to your opinion.
I definitely agree that compared to other platforms, the Picaxe has lower computational power. And it is not as ubiquitous as an Arduino.
But at least for me, its IDE is second to none for beginners or experts who require a simple project.
Speaking of simple projects, let me share my last one: my E-bike has a nice headlight and tail light, excellent for dusk riding. But it doesn’t have a blink option, which for rider safety is crucial during daylight riding.
I could have designed a Mosfet driven by a 555, or to make it even more attention-catching, add complex blinking patterns. Or even features like changing the blinking pattern when the bike is stopped,…or selectable blinking.
The simplest discrete logic circuit required six ICs.
An Arduino would have been an overkill, but the lowly and inexpensive 08M2LE was simply perfect.
I definitely agree that compared to other platforms, the Picaxe has lower computational power. And it is not as ubiquitous as an Arduino.
But at least for me, its IDE is second to none for beginners or experts who require a simple project.
Speaking of simple projects, let me share my last one: my E-bike has a nice headlight and tail light, excellent for dusk riding. But it doesn’t have a blink option, which for rider safety is crucial during daylight riding.
I could have designed a Mosfet driven by a 555, or to make it even more attention-catching, add complex blinking patterns. Or even features like changing the blinking pattern when the bike is stopped,…or selectable blinking.
The simplest discrete logic circuit required six ICs.
An Arduino would have been an overkill, but the lowly and inexpensive 08M2LE was simply perfect.
And the PICAXE line is based on some very reliable chips. The 08M controlling the cooling fan for the A/V cabinet has been running 10 years or more, silently lighting its LED when reading the DS18B20 and turning the somewhat short-lived fans on and off as needed. I think it's on fan number 3 or 4 ;-)
I feel like changing up the model would be helpful ... rather than have the PE compile-down to tokens, and pass that to an interpreter living on the chip ... why not have the PE compile the Basic program down to HEX which can be flashed on a standard PIC?
I think Great Cow Basic does this (I haven't used it myself) ... but that would give the chips the speed folks are sometimes looking for .... and maybe open up different variable types. Lastly, it would give a lot more space on the chips, since they won't be required to house the PICAXE firmware.
Just whip up a small serial bootloader, and you're off to the races.
I think Great Cow Basic does this (I haven't used it myself) ... but that would give the chips the speed folks are sometimes looking for .... and maybe open up different variable types. Lastly, it would give a lot more space on the chips, since they won't be required to house the PICAXE firmware.
Just whip up a small serial bootloader, and you're off to the races.
fernando_g
Senior Member
BP;
That is an interesting idea.
Speed and space are a couple of factors that the Picaxe is sorely lacking.
That is an interesting idea.
Speed and space are a couple of factors that the Picaxe is sorely lacking.
Not dead, but seems a whole lot less active nowadays. I haven't been really active over the past few years, but drop by on the forum every now and then and the activity here in a month seems to be less than what there was in a day ~10 years ago. At least that's my impression. Another sighn is that the offerings have been stagnant for close to a decade now as well.
Aries
New Member
I rather think that is the point - if all you need is the Picaxe basic compiler and a standard PIC, then all RevEd has to sell is the compiler (a one-off purchase for each user), rather than giving away a free compiler, but then selling a chip for each separate use.
Yes, I agree ... but as I said: I think that model needs to change. Personally, I'd pay between $50 - $100 USD for the Picaxe Compiler ... if it could compile down to native machine code for the PIC. And users would need a programmer to get the bootloader installed initially (Unless REvEd wants to sell Bootloader-ready chips) ... but after that, downloads can be via serial cable.
If I were still determined to use Basic, I'd probably be looking at that GCBasic just because code from that IDE will run natively on the PIC, no interpreter needed.
I still check the PICAXE website and the forum from time to time to see if anything is new. I used to post a lot here but haven't for a few years now.
It's a bit sad to see that not much has happened in the way of new products since about 15 years ago when the M2 series was launched, along with the serial OLEDs shortly afterwards, but I suppose the educational market doesn't need anything cutting edge. People who were in school when the X2 and M2 series came out are now in engineering jobs where they're unlikely to be considering PICAXE, whilst a new intake of kids are going to be doing similar things with PICAXE as their predecessors did in previous years and additional power isn't really needed. It would be nice if an X3 came out with support for negative numbers, floats, proper arrays, 32-bit integers, no interpreted code, and so on, but it would be a massive undertaking to do that (Rev-Ed is a very small company), it's difficult to see what they could do to make me choose it over ESP32, STM32, Raspberry Pi Pico, and Arduino, which are the platforms I use today for new projects, and I think it's right to focus on education.
I still have a number of PICAXE-based projects in operation in my house, primarily the battery powered temperature transmitters for my wireless thermometer project, all of which I think are still on their original batteries after running for several years.
It's a bit sad to see that not much has happened in the way of new products since about 15 years ago when the M2 series was launched, along with the serial OLEDs shortly afterwards, but I suppose the educational market doesn't need anything cutting edge. People who were in school when the X2 and M2 series came out are now in engineering jobs where they're unlikely to be considering PICAXE, whilst a new intake of kids are going to be doing similar things with PICAXE as their predecessors did in previous years and additional power isn't really needed. It would be nice if an X3 came out with support for negative numbers, floats, proper arrays, 32-bit integers, no interpreted code, and so on, but it would be a massive undertaking to do that (Rev-Ed is a very small company), it's difficult to see what they could do to make me choose it over ESP32, STM32, Raspberry Pi Pico, and Arduino, which are the platforms I use today for new projects, and I think it's right to focus on education.
I still have a number of PICAXE-based projects in operation in my house, primarily the battery powered temperature transmitters for my wireless thermometer project, all of which I think are still on their original batteries after running for several years.
One thing they could do: Open-source the firmware. They continue to keep their contracts with schools ... they sell "Official" PICAXE products to the schools ... but the interpreter is out there, open source, for people to look at.
You're right, it would be a HUGE undertaking for RevED to port the firmware to a new chip ... but maybe NOT such a huge undertaking for the PICAXE community at large.
Personally, I would LOVE to see the firmware for my two favorite chips (08M2 and 20x2) so I could figure out why things happen when they do ... why I can't change a particular value with POKE ... why things get changed back ...
I can imagine countless opportunities for optimization, modification, and porting if the community at large had access to the code.
fernando_g
Senior Member
I also used to hang out in the Picaxe forum a lot perhaps 10 years ago. Lively discussions, always an opportunity to learn something new, interesting tricks posted by knowledgeable individuals, wonderful people, a non-toxic environment, the list of positives just went on and on.
Most of those positive attributes still remain, but the technical content has dwindled to a trickle.
Most of those positive attributes still remain, but the technical content has dwindled to a trickle.
Arduino, and the companies selling associated products such as Adafruit, were really in the right place with the right product at the right time, aimed at the right market (makers, rather than engineers), but I do wonder what would have happened if Rev-Ed had released an open-source product in the mid-2000s? Could they have ended up in the same place where Arduino ended up instead? Wikipedia reckons that the Arduino was born out of trying to solve the drawbacks of the Basic Stamp, but PICAXE already solved some of those drawbacks years before.
Specifically for the chip firmware, I believe Rev-Ed staff have previously stated that it's all written in assembly language, so porting it or even understanding it would be very difficult. In recent years, I think they've done the right thing in refining the toolchain for the educational market (integrating Logicator into PE6, integration with Blockly, etc.) as the maker market now seems to be confident with using C, at least the dumbed-down Arduino version of C which solves most of the drawbacks of C and makes it almost as easy as PICAXE BASIC whilst still offering the power of C.
If they released the commented source code, it'd be a breeze ... but even uncommented code would be GREAT to go through .... I kind of love that stuff. And again, if it were released to the public, I'm sure there would be modifications, refinements, enhancements, and new features in very short-order.
Sadly, Picaxe never had the push to flood the internet like Arduino did ;-(
For some reason Aurduino is the "beginners choice" and that's really sad that newbies/kids/students are missing the simplicity of BASIC instead of being thrown head-first into a C-structured language for Arduino programming ;-(
As much as Picaxe chips are great/handy/easy etc, it's a bit tired now and falling behind all these new high speed processors flooding the market.
I'm sure we'd LOVE to see the picaxe (basic) platform be ported across to something modern (and fast) like an ESP32 etc, it would also open up a lot of new picaxe ethernet/wifi options too, without having to use addon chips etc.
Will this ever happen?????
For some reason Aurduino is the "beginners choice" and that's really sad that newbies/kids/students are missing the simplicity of BASIC instead of being thrown head-first into a C-structured language for Arduino programming ;-(
As much as Picaxe chips are great/handy/easy etc, it's a bit tired now and falling behind all these new high speed processors flooding the market.
I'm sure we'd LOVE to see the picaxe (basic) platform be ported across to something modern (and fast) like an ESP32 etc, it would also open up a lot of new picaxe ethernet/wifi options too, without having to use addon chips etc.
Will this ever happen?????
I think M2 is end of the line. Hard to believe young students want to learn basic probably only using the blockly language. I can't imagine any advantage in upgrading to higher powered chips for blockly.
I still love picaxe, i've sampled all the competition and picaxe is still my favorite. My last project uses a raspberry pico, attached to it's UART is a picaxe. The pico takes care of internet communication and if need be fancy math while picaxe talks to remote picaxe chips using cheap 433 Mhz modules. i've tried great cow basic, it's ok but nowhere as easy to use as picaxe.
i would not hesitate to pay $100 for a picaxe compiler but i can't imagine rev-ed releasing it, would severely limit their income.
I really don't know ... I mean, their school contracts would just go on as-is ... I can't picture schools changing up their programs that are working. It would *possibly* the loss of chip sales for hobbiests ... and how much profit do you imagine they make on chip sales? They need to buy the chips, spot-test them, re-package and ship ... vs. just selling software which is 100% their own IP.
Plus, not everybody would want to make that move to more "advanced" Picaxe ... so they could continue to sell the Picaxe chips as-is ... and off the advanced compiler as a separate product.
I think I might have confused things. A hobbyist compiler would create a hex file for programming a chip, no longer using a plain serial programmer. For the schools you'd sell the current method with firmware on the chip. That would make economic sense.
They can also restrict the compiler to a few chips like you mentioned, 08M2 and 20x2 base chips.
I use Great Cow Basic daily, if not personally, professionally.
I find the syntax similar to PicAxe Basic and have no problems there. I tend to use "just" the GCB compiler and another editor-IDE rather than the new (VSCode based) GCB-IDE which suits my thought process better. I miss the PicAxe simulator but otherwise prefer everything about GCB. PicAxe runs too slowly for me, and it doesn't have the code space I need for larger projects, an 18F15Q41 is getting too small for a few designs, so a 20M2 certainly wouldn't suffice.
What I see is that Arduino was aiming for Makers and Picaxe was aiming for Education. Those communities have completely different type of people involved. The Makers love to show off their creations which is not the same for students having to learn and work with a Picaxe. After many years, Arduino switched to Education as well, but it had already gained fame and had a large community which made it an easy choice for educators to use. The plethora of educational and experimentation boards available for Arduino for education is amazing! If Education is what RevEd is aiming for they need to up their game. They need to offer competitive educational and experimentation boards and create a nice block based tablet app to program those boards. Picaxecloud site is dead for more than a week now and that is a bad sign.
I still use Picaxes, I think they are brilliant chips and quite powerful.
I still use Picaxes, I think they are brilliant chips and quite powerful.
Bayside888
Active member
I researched different microcontrollers for months for a new line of industrial control systems. I chose the PicAxe over Arduino, MPLab, etc because of the speed of device development, ease of interfacing with hardware peripherals, and use of Basic, which I have used for 35 years. I have developed several systems, which work well. My only problem has been with integer basic. Have had to develop several complicated algorithms to handle 5+ digit calculations. Floating point in PicAxe would be a game changer. I won't go to GCBasic (and hopefully never MPLab) until I have need for more than 100 pieces of a device. Even then, every minor change in the system would be a pain.
Bayside888, maybe you haven't seen that: https://picaxe.com/hardware/add-on-modules/um-fpu-floating-point-coprocessor/
-or- you could take inspiration an build a similar system using GCBasic or even C on a small microcontroller.
I like Basic as well, very easy and fast to use. If you add macros you can really write nice code. The Basic language on the Picaxe chips is interpreted, it's the underlying code that matters, and in this case the firmware is exceptionally well written.
-or- you could take inspiration an build a similar system using GCBasic or even C on a small microcontroller.
I like Basic as well, very easy and fast to use. If you add macros you can really write nice code. The Basic language on the Picaxe chips is interpreted, it's the underlying code that matters, and in this case the firmware is exceptionally well written.
kranenborg
Senior Member
I can imagine that one reason for the question "Is picaxe dead" popping up, is the lack of new "M3" type devices being released. However, as I see it:
Consequently, I do not foresee M3 devices to emerge unless RevEd would decide that the scope (and user base) of the products would change. For me that is not needed, but for others this may be of interest.
For what it is worth ... .
/Jurjen
- The Microchip devices on which the M2/X2 versions are based are simple. But they are very versatile with most relevant hardware modules (ADC/DAC, clocks etc. etc. ) for such a simple 8-bit architecture already present.
- In the last fifteen years, Microchip has not provided more powerful upgrades to the silicon of these devices (with the same pin count - the Picaxes are mostly based on the most powerful silicon versions for a given pin count). So that means that this microcontroller range apparently has matured and according to Microchip's customers already provides a broad-enough base hardware functionality.
- In my humble opinion the Picaxe BASIC implementation supports the use of these HW modules very well (either through direct commands or through PokeSFR/PeekSFR, with some effort you can use them all).
- More advanced functions might look feasible, but due to the limited resources of these devices (memory size and the 8-bit architecture in particular) likely impractical or even impossible.
Consequently, I do not foresee M3 devices to emerge unless RevEd would decide that the scope (and user base) of the products would change. For me that is not needed, but for others this may be of interest.
For what it is worth ... .
/Jurjen
Last edited:
I don't mind not having M3 chips around any time soon. M2 chips are capable for most things a tinkerer would do, except things that require very high speeds (e.g. ws2812 leds).
What I do care about is having proper support of the Picaxe IDE on operating systems other than Windows. I do understand the costs involved in maintaining software for multiple platforms but my idea here is to have a proper "Cloud Programming" environment and by that I mean to have an environment that looks and works like a proper IDE and not a version of AXEPad running on a web server.
What I do care about is having proper support of the Picaxe IDE on operating systems other than Windows. I do understand the costs involved in maintaining software for multiple platforms but my idea here is to have a proper "Cloud Programming" environment and by that I mean to have an environment that looks and works like a proper IDE and not a version of AXEPad running on a web server.
I don't agree with this ... there are certainly more powerful 8-bit, 8-pin chips than the 12F1840 (PICAXE 08M2) ... some with 2x or 4x the RAM, 2x the flash storage, more UART, configurable logic blocks, etc. The PIC16F17115 for instance. As for the 18F14K22 (PICAXE 20X2), I've started playing with the PIC18F16Q41 which has 4x the storage, 8x the RAM, More timers, CLC, etc. There's even 20-pin chips that are nearly identical to the 20x2, but include a USB module.
Microchip has been marching along.
"Stagnant" is an excellent description ... and in the technology market, you can't sit still, you'll be overtaken very quickly.
inglewoodpete
Senior Member
Potentially upgrading the PICAXE mathematics to floating point or even introducing negative number handling would be quite daunting for a company of Rev-Ed's scale. They may surprise us, like when the M2s and X2s were introduced. We hobbyists have to realise that Rev-Ed's primary market is the school system, with standard projects and texts already written to suit.
Personally, I'd love to see the newer Microchip PICs with Peripheral Pin Select (PPS) utilised, allowing the peripherals to be ported to practically any I/O pin. Not only could peripherals be redirected to any pin the each peripheral could be redirected in user software, for example virtually duplicating async, i2c or SPI serial ports. A peripheral could not perform two functions at once of course but it would increase the chip's flexibility.
Personally, I'd love to see the newer Microchip PICs with Peripheral Pin Select (PPS) utilised, allowing the peripherals to be ported to practically any I/O pin. Not only could peripherals be redirected to any pin the each peripheral could be redirected in user software, for example virtually duplicating async, i2c or SPI serial ports. A peripheral could not perform two functions at once of course but it would increase the chip's flexibility.
There were standard lesson plans and texts written to teach the electric typewriter as well, they've had to upgrade and evolve.
kranenborg
Senior Member
Thanks, I wasn't aware so it appears, and indeed these devices seem to have some new potential.
kranenborg
Senior Member
Maybe another reason for "the smell of death" at least 
is that the website is not updated with new projects: the monthly contributions on the Project Gallery Page stop at June 2020, and in the last months tabulated there no new contributions were actually submitted, so that is up to us as users ... . I can imagine that there are recent contributions worth mentioning there as well.
is that the website is not updated with new projects: the monthly contributions on the Project Gallery Page stop at June 2020, and in the last months tabulated there no new contributions were actually submitted, so that is up to us as users ... . I can imagine that there are recent contributions worth mentioning there as well.
Last edited:
Bayside888
Active member
steliosm: thanks for the reply. The order page for the FPU unit is no longer accessable on PicAxe, so I assumed it was no longer available. I have also thought about building a separate unit like you suggest, just don't have the time right now. Nonetheless, I have developed several routines to handle large numbers, but mostly complex calculations involving decimal fractions. My controllers need to read sensors and make engineering calculations. I have a good math background, so I have spent some rather enjoyable time developing spreadsheet analyses of the results. I have gotten the accuracy (precision, actually) down to 4 decimal places, which is better than the accuracy (precision) of almost all the sensors, so its working out so far. For example, a good 4-20 mA pressure sensor is only precise (and not usually accurate) to 0.1 mA, which is only 2 1/2 digits. Then, reading the sensor with a 0.1 % 249 ohm resistor adds additional error. So, calibration routine is required which can help with the calculation precision.
I started programming 61 years ago, so I'll probably stick with Basic since its my most productive language for real-world interactions. I first started using Basic over 25-30 years ago to replace ladder logic controllers. I am also partial to PIC devices, having used PICs in several commercial products over the years. Honestly, I would not choose anything presently available (and fast to develop) for multi-analog industrial control and peripheral interfacing over the 18F25's. Development speed nowadays is critical. I can be on the fourth design iteration before others get the first product out the door. By then, the market has already changed.
The trouble with the uM-FPU is adding that seems like more of a faff to me than learning to program a microcontroller in C, giving native floating point capability, similar to the complex workarounds that others have written to solve other limitations of PICAXE. I did stick with PICAXE for a while and pushed it to the limit but using other platforms like AVR, ESP32, PSoC and FPGAs made it possible to create things that simply wouldn't be possible on PICAXE.
I don't think you are not supposed to stick with Picaxe for as long you DIY/Maker/Engineer "career" lasts. Picaxe will teach you the fundamentals for using microcontrollers and provide you with an easy and quick alternative when you need to build or validate an idea. It might look like a "no-go" for a big or complex project to most engineers or tinkerers but it's one of the best introductions to microcontrollers.
PS. I wish they dropped the rs-232 'break' signal to switch to bootloader mode on the chip and be able to use ANY usb-to-ttl adapter.
PS. I wish they dropped the rs-232 'break' signal to switch to bootloader mode on the chip and be able to use ANY usb-to-ttl adapter.
You *can* use other USB / TTL adapters ... I picked up a handful of those FTDI (maybe counterfeit?) adapters from eBay ... like a pack for 10 for $10 ... I set two aside, fired up the FTDI config program in Windows and inverted the output (and input? can't remember) signals. Saved the config, and BAM! I've got a FTDI adapter configured for PICAXE ...
As for the "Break" signal ... it's different, but it actually helped me out on a project .... I wanted to collect some data from a building that was ~60 meters away ... I had Ethernet cable running to it (non terminated) so I set up a TTL/422 adapter on my PC side, and a 422/TTL adapter on the other side ... hooked up a PICAXE, and was off to the races.
Since the TTL/422 adapter only passes TX/RX/GND, I couldn't use an Arduino or one of my PICs with Tinymultibootloader on it, because those chips NEED the CTS or DTR signal to reset the chip and get into bootloader mode ... the PICAXE on the other hand was able to receive the "Break" signal just fine across the 422 adapters, and I was able to update my code without leaving the comfort of my house!
fernando_g
Senior Member
You are correct about this one.Maybe another reason for "the smell of death" at least
Time for one of us senior members, which I am confident has developed an interesting project, to upload it.
I have what I called an RGBinary clock, in which the date and time are shown with a combination of binary code and different colors displayed by RGB Leds.
kranenborg
Senior Member
I checked, it appears that the project gallery upload facility has been effectively disabled.
In the end it is fully up to RevEd to decide what exposure they choose for their products (and in which way). We as "professional hobbyists" can only help, by 1. showing the usefulness of (and fun we have with) their product, and 2. indicating the opportunities (and honest requests) to upgrade the product.
I hope RevEd is reading along this thread and picking up the sincere messages. To me, Picaxe started my microcontroller involvement and it is still the preferred uC architecture in my projects.
In the end it is fully up to RevEd to decide what exposure they choose for their products (and in which way). We as "professional hobbyists" can only help, by 1. showing the usefulness of (and fun we have with) their product, and 2. indicating the opportunities (and honest requests) to upgrade the product.
I hope RevEd is reading along this thread and picking up the sincere messages. To me, Picaxe started my microcontroller involvement and it is still the preferred uC architecture in my projects.
Last edited:
Revisiting the open-source idea, whilst I don't think it would make good business sense to open-source the current PICAXE chip firmwares, I think it would be cool if they were to open-source their discontinued products such as the Chip Factory and the PICAXE NET Server. Those products aren't made any more so there would be no possible commercial disadvantage to doing so, and the Chip Factory in particular is quite a cool device (even if it is very limited compared to computer-based microcontroller programming) so it could give Rev-Ed some free advertising if the likes of Hackaday are told about it.
Jeremy Leach
Senior Member
I came back to using a PICAXE solution recently, after quite a few years deep in embedded C, on a pretty unusual van heater project using molten wax and involving a relay, a bunch of thermistors, a display and a serial comms feed back to the PC for logging. It was an absolute pleasure writing a PICAXE solution because so much of the hard work is already done when you use an interpreted language. It's abstracted away in a very elegant way, and you don't have to get incredibly deep in the often very dense chip manuals. Of course an interpreter can be slow but it depends on the use case as to whether this really matters, and there are some pretty powerful and fast PICAXE commands that leverage the capabilities of the chips to the Max.
I think the ONLY commands that "leverage the capabilities of the chips to the max ..." are those which configure / enable the core-independent peripherals (PWM, timers, etc.) Otherwise, you're running through the interpreter.
That being said, speaking for myself .... 80 - 90% of the projects I've built only really need to be faster than ME, not as fast a lightening ... so PICAXE works. But, I've also had projects where I want things to be much faster ... and I've enjoyed embedded PIC development for that ... I mean ... if you haven't played with Direct Memory Access ... you're missing out!
