Concerned...!!...:)

P

pxgator

Senior Member
Hi Everyone,

I know this subject is been discussed many times before but I felt the need to bring it
up again. Is the PICAXE system becoming stagnant..?? I surely hope not because using
PE6 and the simulator is so easy and a real pleasure compared to other environments.
The PICAXE team has done an amazing job and I surely hope it continues....but I'm
beginning to wonder? If only PE6 could do compiled code and support some of the
PIC32 architectures many of the current road blocks could be eliminated. I surely would
not mind spending a few $$ for a PICAXE systen that could do all of this.

Cheers to all from the colonies...:)
 
Last edited:
I can't see them doing for 8 bit the same for 32 bit pic. It would be very difficult. Picaxe is great for learning. Try using a 32 bit arduino duo..32 bit pics the same..complicated. search pic avr basic compiler for basic to flash hex...or learn c
 
Hi Stan,

I use C/C++ (my preferred languages) with Ard**, Teensy, MPLAB, etc. on a regular basis.
I was just wondering what the future holds for the PICAXE system..??

P.S. The Ard** Due is a joke compared to the 32 bit Teensy boards.
 
Last edited:
I am in empathy with your thoughts on this - I remember the excitement of waiting (...and waiting and waiting...) for the release of the M and X2 variants and then the hours of enjoyment in building the new projects that these excellent chips facilitated. Then there was the run up to PICAXE Editor 6 which was a great enhancement from 5. And now...it seems there is nothing waiting in the wings - or at least nothing that has been proposed or rumoured. Conversely, the system does do precisely "what it says on the tin". It delivers a very easy to implement PIC programming environment which is ideally suited to the educational market; the educational market being the apparent major aspect as opposed to developers and hobbyists who, though probably the majority on this forum, are not the main market.

Program Editor 5 did offer assembler output but only using the RevEd programmer. The range of chips that this compiled for was never expanded and the facility was not carried over into Program Editor 6. Compiled code out of PE6 has been promised regularly though without a timescale (http://www.picaxeforum.co.uk/showthread.php?29657-Picaxe-what-next&p=306948&viewfull=1#post306948). The occasional need for speed has caused me to venture out into some other systems but, like so many others, sticking to PICAXE for its reliable and easy program development and implementation. We have little insight into the marketing model that RevEd are using, but clearly the revenue stream comes primarily from the pre-coded PICAXE chips. If PE6 compiled code then this would, of course, be a problem because the few pence profit on each chip would disappear. Therefore the logical way forward would be to SELL the additional compiling facility - rather like it was with the RevEd Programmer. If I was offered an additional compiling module to add on to Program Editor 6 I would willingly spend a significant sum for the licence. How much is significant? To me it would clearly be worth spending a couple of hundred pounds on a single-user licence - much in line with some of the compiled BASIC for PIC systems that are out there already...and yes, I know that I can get Great Cow Basic free, but it is a little clunky compared with some of the smoother commercial packages. Simple, ready-to-load code from PE6 would be a dream come true.

As far as the PIC32 architecture is concerned, well, wow yes, I use these in several projects and the speed and code-space are obviously just super. I think that the transition to 32 bit from the 8 bit structure of PE6 would be a pretty enormous re-write.

In conclusion, top of my wish-list for PICAXE is an additional licence module which will bolt onto PE6 and give me compiled output like I got with PE 5 and the RevEd Programmer - and I expect to pay for it.
 
Circuit said:
In conclusion, top of my wish-list for PICAXE is an additional licence module which will bolt onto PE6 and give me compiled output like I got with PE 5 and the RevEd Programmer - and I expect to pay for it.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head with you're reply my friend. I would gladly sacrifice my beer budget
for what you described...:)
 
stan74 said:
again, ...search free pic basic compiler. You might find something amazing
Click to expand...

I have already done this a few times Sir. Great Cow Basic seems to be pretty cool but until PE6 or it's successor can do the same or better I'd
rather stick with C/C++ and Ard**, Teensy, and/or MPLAB.

Cheers to All
 
It was for speed I used an alternative to picaxe. I'm more fluent in basic compared to c. I wish it was the other way around...more options.
I have no idea why picaxe folk push the system so hard. As a hobbyist it fits in well with many devices but not all ie devices with a setup like most interesting devices, glcd,temp/barometric,laser range,lots...the arduino/rpi stuff. The picaxe support is great but can't solve every problem with these devices...glcds are slow on picaxe. this is in clunky basic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RnrodF9-LI
 
Checkout the micromite and mm basic for the pic32MX and MZ range. I use this in places where the picaxe can not go.

Bill
 
Bill.b said:
Checkout the micromite and mm basic for the pic32MX and MZ range. I use this in places where the picaxe can not go.

Bill
Click to expand...

The Micromite is a logical progression from the PICAXE, but if your moving to 32 bits it might be worth considering Micropython and the excellent Thonny development environment.
 
A word or two in support of Revolution Education. Whilst there have been no new Picaxe chips for a while, they are still bringing out new "stuff" for the education market, e.g. Blockly for Picaxe which is a great piece of software. Even in the "hobbyist" world, there have been recent developments such as RevEd's S2Bot software, which is continually being updated to support the latest electronic toys and gadgets like Sphero and SBrick+.
 
mm basic is an interpreter not a compiler so slower than 8 bit. Python is a slow interpreted languge even on a 4 core 1.2 GHz rpi.
Where would picaxe be if the assembler feature in pe5 converted basic to asm? Would anyone use the interpreted code if pe could make a non interpreted hexfile?
 
stan74 said:
mm basic is an interpreter not a compiler so slower than 8 bit. Python is a slow interpreted languge even on a 4 core 1.2 GHz rpi.
Where would picaxe be if the assembler feature in pe5 converted basic to asm? Would anyone use the interpreted code if pe could make a non interpreted hexfile?
Click to expand...


I would not reject MicroPython based on speed tests of Python running on a RPi. MicroPython was specifically developed for embedded applications and has an integral operating system, but still supports the modularity and library support of Python.
 
The original post was 32bit picaxe... and why. I think it's a need for speed thing. The name rev ed says it all. How to program pics easy but as a "model" or emulation which is not a realworld pic. A real pic has no limit on variable names and no need for peek/poke...even with say tiny bootloader..I just use pickit2 and icsp on blank pic so 100 bytes more than a bl.
I was very happy using picaxe, it's so easy to do stuff. I then found another basic that's more suited to stuff my 28x2 couldn't do but the 18f25k22 could in compiled basic to native asm.
A 32 bit picaxe might not be as fast as a 8 bit pic with efficient asm. rpi python gpio is slow ie max speed you can turn a port on/off so 64bit chip makes little diff.
 
No Stan, the original post was not just about 32 bit PICAXE.
Actually the original post was about opinions on the future of the PICAXE system and that's about
all. The available PIC32 environments are pretty much common knowledge. The original post was
NOT about GCB, picBasicPro, mmBasic, microPython, etc., etc. Perhaps I need lessons
on how to assemble posts that do not careen off topic so quickly...:)

Cheers to All
 
Last edited:
"If only PE6 could do compiled code and support some of the
PIC32 architectures many of the current road blocks could be eliminated. I surely would
not mind spending a few $$ for a PICAXE systen that could do all of this."
I guess by compiled code you mean not interpreted. What pic32 archiectures and what road blocks do you refer to?
As to stagnate. Open source has new stuff added regularly. A bit like say bmp280 support by al but sort of in a fixed format include.
anyway 32bit would be a caffeine boost.
The ability to flash real asm to a picaxe only chip from the basic in pe would lose re no money and solve users wants maybe.But then again, why use the interpreter.
 
pxgator said:
No Stan, the original post was not just about 32 bit PICAXE.
Actually the original post was about opinions on the future of the PICAXE system and that's about
all. The available PIC32 environments are pretty much common knowledge. The original post was
NOT about GCB, picBasicPro, mmBasic, microPython, etc., etc. Perhaps I need lessons
on how to assemble posts that do not careen off topic so quickly...:)

Cheers to All
Click to expand...

Having mentioned 32-bits microcontrollers at the start of this thread, it seems relevant to consider the alternative languages that such a move would make available. I totally agree that the PICAXE environment is an extremely efficient means of developing code for 8-bit microcontrollers and already meets the needs of the education market admirably. However, for more complex projects, one of the main advantages of languages like C++ and microPython is the ability to incorporate code from rapidly growing development communities. Complex projects are able to progress more quickly with access to libraries such as GPS parsers and smart sensor drivers.
 
Hi MFB,

You and stan74 have made some very good points. I made a huge mistake about mentioning PIC32 in my
original post. My apologies to all. My intent was to get opinions on what PICAXE is and what it could be in
the future. But since this subject has been beaten to death over the years maybe it's a good idea to let this
thread die. I now like to think that I've learned a good lesson on the art of assembling posts for this awesome
forum.

Cheers to All
 
pxgator said:
Hi MFB,

You and stan74 have made some very good points. I made a huge mistake about mentioning PIC32 in my
original post. My apologies to all. My intent was to get opinions on what PICAXE is and what it could be in
the future. But since this subject has been beaten to death over the years maybe it's a good idea to let this
thread die. I now like to think that I've learned a good lesson on the art of assembling posts for this awesome
forum.

Cheers to All
Click to expand...

That's fairinuff with me.
 
I didn't mention a basic pic programming alternative by name, just search.
Honestly, 32 bitpic is fast but very complicated compared to 8 bit. Ask yourself why bother. (tried mplabx? or avr ide fo 32 bit)
Why not try a raspberry pi and freebasic which makes native asm for the 4 core 1.2GHz chip in 32 bit mode.
I takes a repeatative exercise to show speed failure with picaxe, until you encounter it, it's fine. Only then did I think about it.
Most happy picaxe users haven't encountered this and don't see the problem.
Try clunky basic, like picaxe for any pic or avr in ninja mode. new 16f pics have programmable pins..any pin can be anything you want, it's supported.
Once you've used picaxe for basic and want more and want to still use the same commands then clunky is a viable alternative but only if you need. You couldn't do my previous vid in pa, first need the setup then using I tried and although just reading tables and writing to spi glcd the array for just 8 sprites and their bombs and the base firing 3 missiles, just arrays and elements, it was so slow, frame every few seconds, not 18 or more a sec I got with my clunky code.
End of the day..I carry on my using basic to program pics from learning picaxe so I got my moneys worth. Happy trails.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top