Adaptability of picaxe
- Thread starter Gramps
- Start date
kranenborg
Senior Member
For me it somehow feels that the Picaxe strikes a proper balance between the simplicity of its programming model (a limited set of relatively simple commands paired with small but clear set of variables - so "what you see is what you get") and the accessibility of all the nice modules/functionality that the microcontroller offers, through direct Basic commands or otherwise the POKESFR function as a last resort.
Consequently I can quickly start a project to see whether an idea works, and with getting first results quickly - and actually making things - the project starts to really fly with coming up and testing of new ideas. For me it feels that for other platforms it takes me more effort to get that spinning wheel going ,,, and therefore I often end up with Picaxe ... .
PS: I should add that my projects are generally not too complex and battery driven. The latter also motivates towards a simpler, energy-efficient solution for which the Picaxe is perfect.
... and we should not forget that we have this resourceful forum...
/Jurjen
https://www.kranenborg.org/electronics
Consequently I can quickly start a project to see whether an idea works, and with getting first results quickly - and actually making things - the project starts to really fly with coming up and testing of new ideas. For me it feels that for other platforms it takes me more effort to get that spinning wheel going ,,, and therefore I often end up with Picaxe ... .
PS: I should add that my projects are generally not too complex and battery driven. The latter also motivates towards a simpler, energy-efficient solution for which the Picaxe is perfect.
... and we should not forget that we have this resourceful forum...
/Jurjen
https://www.kranenborg.org/electronics
Last edited:
As a starting point it's great, and is more than capable for most applications. However there are some things that are little counter intuitive.
I can't say:
I would have to read the adc into a variable and then do the comparison. This is then compounded if I want to compare 2 or more analogue signals.
I am well aware that it may well compile into basically the same at compile time. I have been finding the interrupt system very lacking of recent times, same with the shortness of the background timer overflow. Less than 2 seconds versus more than 52 days. Then there is the or and or does difference, most 16mgz chips with outrun a picaxe running at 64mhz.
Now I can pick up a some nanos at cost of around £12 for 3 without the cost of a special lead.
Then the code is normally transportable between wildly different controllers, even controllers that are traditional not Arduino. Write a piece of code for a Uno, use it on a teensy or a attiny...
For most hobbiest, picaxe is more than enough. But a smaller user base there is going to be less cider written for less components.
I can't say:
Code:
If readadc A0 > b0 then
'do stuff
End ifI am well aware that it may well compile into basically the same at compile time. I have been finding the interrupt system very lacking of recent times, same with the shortness of the background timer overflow. Less than 2 seconds versus more than 52 days. Then there is the or and or does difference, most 16mgz chips with outrun a picaxe running at 64mhz.
Now I can pick up a some nanos at cost of around £12 for 3 without the cost of a special lead.
Then the code is normally transportable between wildly different controllers, even controllers that are traditional not Arduino. Write a piece of code for a Uno, use it on a teensy or a attiny...
For most hobbiest, picaxe is more than enough. But a smaller user base there is going to be less cider written for less components.
More sophisticated chips are for more sophisticated applications and will likely need more sophisticated code.
Picaxe "libraries" (chunks of code) are built into the internal interpreter and are not not accessible to the user. For example, hardware serial. Do Picaxe users really understand what's going on when these "chunks of code" are called?... I would say no more so than when using a platform (such as A.....o) with external libraries. The difference being ...that with an open source platform, the libraries can examined so that the user/programmer CAN better understand what they are actually doing and what the library is doing.
This may be a case of "Horses for Courses".
Goey
I think my *first* microcontroller was an OOpic .... that was pretty cool; but a pre-built PCB ... so going with "just the chip" via PICAXE was a big deal for me, and I loved it.
Adruino has it's place for sure, but the Arduino libraries are as "black box" as the PICAXE functions. Although, you *can* dig into the source code of the Adruino libraries if you want.
I've largely moved from PICAXE to raw PIC programming with MPLAB ... it's been great learning how the chips work at the "bare metal" level. But, I do like to keep my PICAXE knowledge fresh ... they are handy for quick prototyping.
Adruino has it's place for sure, but the Arduino libraries are as "black box" as the PICAXE functions. Although, you *can* dig into the source code of the Adruino libraries if you want.
I've largely moved from PICAXE to raw PIC programming with MPLAB ... it's been great learning how the chips work at the "bare metal" level. But, I do like to keep my PICAXE knowledge fresh ... they are handy for quick prototyping.
Gramps
Senior Member
I learned something today....
HORSES FOR COURSES – "A mostly British expression urging someone to stick to the thing he knows best, 'horses for courses' comes from the horse racing world, where it is widely assumed that some horses race better on certain courses than on others.
HORSES FOR COURSES – "A mostly British expression urging someone to stick to the thing he knows best, 'horses for courses' comes from the horse racing world, where it is widely assumed that some horses race better on certain courses than on others.
My first few microcontroller projects were Picaxe based and worked well. I was an electronics tech (mostly analog stuff) and not a programmer, but I learned Picaxe BASIC and became somewhat proficient with it in a short time.
Then I came upon a project that required reading a 50Khz signal with +-5us accuracy. A Picaxe simply could not do this. So I did some research and got a bare PIC and first tried programming in C and ASM using MPLAB 8. I stuggled through it and got the project done. But I was not fond of C or ASM and found MPLAB to be bloated and non-intuitive . So I did a bit more research and found a platform for PIC (and Atmel) chips that used compiled BASIC where the BASIC source code is compiled into optimized ASM and then assembled into HEX before programming into the chip. This was perfect for me as the code execution speed was comparable or even faster than C and did not require any programming with ASM. That was around 2014 or so.
I still use that platform most of the time as it supports almost all PIC 8-bit microcontrollers including the latest 18F "Q" series, has loads of libraries and is super fast. But like any platform it has its quirks and learning curve but nothing that anyone familiar with BASIC can't master in a few weeks or maybe less. However, I still use a Picaxe 14M2 or 20M2 from time to time when it fits the project. In fact I have a Picaxe 14M2 on a breadboard right now ... Working on a project to control temperature and humidity for growing mushrooms ( not the magic kind).
My encouragement to anyone and everyone is to NOT be a "fanboy" of any particular platform or toolchain, whether it be Picaxe, Arduino or anything else. Use what fits the project, and what fits your own skill level. Keep improving your skills if possible. Being a fanboy of one system or another only limits the possibilities.
Goey
Then I came upon a project that required reading a 50Khz signal with +-5us accuracy. A Picaxe simply could not do this. So I did some research and got a bare PIC and first tried programming in C and ASM using MPLAB 8. I stuggled through it and got the project done. But I was not fond of C or ASM and found MPLAB to be bloated and non-intuitive . So I did a bit more research and found a platform for PIC (and Atmel) chips that used compiled BASIC where the BASIC source code is compiled into optimized ASM and then assembled into HEX before programming into the chip. This was perfect for me as the code execution speed was comparable or even faster than C and did not require any programming with ASM. That was around 2014 or so.
I still use that platform most of the time as it supports almost all PIC 8-bit microcontrollers including the latest 18F "Q" series, has loads of libraries and is super fast. But like any platform it has its quirks and learning curve but nothing that anyone familiar with BASIC can't master in a few weeks or maybe less. However, I still use a Picaxe 14M2 or 20M2 from time to time when it fits the project. In fact I have a Picaxe 14M2 on a breadboard right now ... Working on a project to control temperature and humidity for growing mushrooms ( not the magic kind).
My encouragement to anyone and everyone is to NOT be a "fanboy" of any particular platform or toolchain, whether it be Picaxe, Arduino or anything else. Use what fits the project, and what fits your own skill level. Keep improving your skills if possible. Being a fanboy of one system or another only limits the possibilities.
Goey
hippy
Ex-Staff (retired)
I would say it's slightly different to that, not so much an exaltation to use what one knows best, but to use the most suitable thing for a particular task, to recognise that a task is better suited to one thing than another, and some things are better suited or easier to use in particular tasks than others, that there will be different challenges no matter what one uses.
Gramps
Senior Member
True! True!