Difference between PICAXE and PIC?

[Razor Concepts]

What is the real difference between PICAXE and PIC? The PICAXE chip has a "built in interpreter", is that the same thing as a bootloader?

If I buy a PIC16F88 for example, can I use a PICKIT 2 to download the interpreter to change it into a 18x or something?

 

[womai]

The Picaxe has a bootloader AND a built-in interpreter. Picaxe Basic Programs are translated into a bytecode (similar to e.g. Visual Basic's P-Code) and downloaded into the Picaxe where the interpreter executes them. That means the programs are NOT translated into real machine code, which explains why a Picaxe is much slower than a "bare" PIC. The interpreter code is proprietary and owned (and closely guarded) by Rev-Ed, so you can't get it to burn it onto a bare PIC to make it a Picaxe - making it public would undermine Rev-Ed's business model which is to sell pre-programmed Picaxes and then give away the Programming Editor etc. for free. Actually for a user that is the much cheaper way to get into microcontrollers since very little upfront investment is required (no dedicated programmer, instead just a serial cable and two resistors, no need to buy a compiler, etc.) and the Picaxe chips are super-easy to get started with compared to a "true" PIC; the calculation only changes if (1) you already have more experience with compilers, programmers, and (2) need large quantities of chips for series production.

 

[jc173]

The Picaxe has a bootloader AND a built-in interpreter. Picaxe Basic Programs are translated into a bytecode (similar to e.g. Visual Basic's P-Code) and downloaded into the Picaxe where the interpreter executes them. That means the programs are NOT translated into real machine code, which explains why a Picaxe is much slower than a "bare" PIC. The interpreter code is proprietary and owned (and closely guarded) by Rev-Ed, so you can't get it to burn it onto a bare PIC to make it a Picaxe - making it public would undermine Rev-Ed's business model which is to sell pre-programmed Picaxes and then give away the Programming Editor etc. away free.

And it's the better way round to do it as students like myself and can use the chips from school/college and download the programme editor to use for no extra cost

 

[nbw]

PIC = fast and cheap, lots to learn
PICAXE = moderately fast, a little more expensive, very quick and easy to use, plus you get friendly tips and advice from the charming folk on this forum.

 

[Andrew Cowan]

In the long term, PICs are cheaper, in the short term (up to 30 or so chips), PICAXE is cheaper (no complex pregrammer needed).

A

 

[jglenn]

Hmmm. I think you can make a serial programmer for a PIC16F84 for about $10.

Maybe freeware assem out there. I use the 12C671 for the a/d, and cheaper, without it, the 12C508, cost a buck. Tech-tools programmer, has an enhanced
assembler with macro commands like CJE (Compare, Jump if Equal), nifty.

But the PICAXE is valuable to me for the things I find hard in assy: serial, I2C, calculations, and the DEBUG service is neat, very helpful in design. The limitations due to BASIC not being an operating system, I am finding ways around, namely multichip arrays to approximate an operating system. For example, I offload servo commands to my own processor, as to not tie up the 'AXE, and make programming simpler.

 

[demonicpicaxeguy]

Hmmm. I think you can make a serial programmer for a PIC16F84 for about $10.

Maybe freeware assem out there. I use the 12C671 for the a/d, and cheaper, without it, the 12C508, cost a buck. Tech-tools programmer, has an enhanced
assembler with macro commands like CJE (Compare, Jump if Equal), nifty.

if you go down the raw pic route you're better off spending the $35 on the "pickit2" it'll program the whole range... best $35 i've ever spent

 

[jglenn]

I got into pics around 1990 with the Parallax prog, have about 3 of them lying around, an emulator too. Obsolete today with the flash chips. When they came out with the SX chip, MicroChip sued them, I think part of the settlement was they had to offload the programmer line to techtools. There are limitations to assembly for the casual programmer, it seems C is the standard today for embedded, but I don't care for it.