As a microcontroller hobbyist, I enjoy working with both Picaxe and Picbasic Pro for PIC Microcontrollers. Picbasic Pro has been around a lot longer, but I notice a lot in common with the Picaxe commands. Did the developers of Picaxe intentionally develop Picaxe software to be so similar to Picbasic Pro or was that just coincidental?
Picaxe and PicBasic Pro?
- Thread starter artswan
- Start date
westaust55
Moderator
From website comments like:"
Since 1997 Revolution have been working with the Higher Still Development Unit and SCCC to produce an new 'Systems and Control' teaching system for the new Technological Studies Courses."
Rev Ed has beena round at least since 1997.
likewise for MikroElektronika:
"MikroElektronika was established in 1997 as a publishing company specialized in electronics."
Revolution Education started with the CHIP FACTORY as a programmers with a range of applciation/proto boards more than 10 years ago (pre 2000).
I believe that you will find the originals of the PICAXE were initially more aligned to the Parallax BASIC Stamp than Mikroelectronika’s PICBASIC Pro compiler.
So I suspect that both companies developed around the same time in parallel but not linked.
Since 1997 Revolution have been working with the Higher Still Development Unit and SCCC to produce an new 'Systems and Control' teaching system for the new Technological Studies Courses."
Rev Ed has beena round at least since 1997.
likewise for MikroElektronika:
"MikroElektronika was established in 1997 as a publishing company specialized in electronics."
Revolution Education started with the CHIP FACTORY as a programmers with a range of applciation/proto boards more than 10 years ago (pre 2000).
I believe that you will find the originals of the PICAXE were initially more aligned to the Parallax BASIC Stamp than Mikroelectronika’s PICBASIC Pro compiler.
So I suspect that both companies developed around the same time in parallel but not linked.
Last edited:
westaust55
Moderator
From a quick troll around this forum and the MikroElectronika website I found that:
PICBASIC Pro, it started life in July 2004. From the Program version history:
Some PICAXE history here: http://www.picaxeforum.co.uk/showthread.php?&p=78724
Shows that the PIPCAXE and even into the second generation “M” series was in existence well before PICBASIC Pro was first released.
PICBASIC Pro, it started life in July 2004. From the Program version history:
Some PICAXE history here: http://www.picaxeforum.co.uk/showthread.php?&p=78724
Shows that the PIPCAXE and even into the second generation “M” series was in existence well before PICBASIC Pro was first released.
Ummmm, the PicBasic Pro compiler I am referring to is not a MikroElectronika product. It is manufactured and sold by microEngineering Labs, Inc. Here is their website: http://store.melabs.com/cat/software.html
Also, when Picbasic was first introduced by microEngineering Labs, Inc. it's first incarnations were in DOS (remember that?). I know Picaxe programming software does not go back that far!
Also, when Picbasic was first introduced by microEngineering Labs, Inc. it's first incarnations were in DOS (remember that?). I know Picaxe programming software does not go back that far!
Last edited:
westaust55
Moderator
PICBASIC Pro (by MeLabs) history indicates:
Initial Release: 2.00 no date but not a prior Pro release
First version with a data is:
Previous Release: 2.40 (September 2001)
And I see comments like”
At V2.4 = “Changes REV to be more compatible with BS2.”
At V2.1 = “Rearranged bit handling for BS2 compatibility.”
At PICBASIC V1.4 = ‘SEROUT ON modes changed to open drain to match BS1.”
So MeLabs (seemingly established in ~1992) was trying to be similar to Parallax BASIC Stamp. Not others copying MeLabs.
Parallax for comparison was established in 1987. In 1992, the BASIC Stamp 1 microcontroller module was released. In 1995, the BASIC Stamp 2 module was added to the product lineup.
But at the end of the day, does it matter ?
Folks like the PICAXE range of chips and use them.
That is what counts.
Initial Release: 2.00 no date but not a prior Pro release
First version with a data is:
Previous Release: 2.40 (September 2001)
And I see comments like”
At V2.4 = “Changes REV to be more compatible with BS2.”
At V2.1 = “Rearranged bit handling for BS2 compatibility.”
At PICBASIC V1.4 = ‘SEROUT ON modes changed to open drain to match BS1.”
So MeLabs (seemingly established in ~1992) was trying to be similar to Parallax BASIC Stamp. Not others copying MeLabs.
Parallax for comparison was established in 1987. In 1992, the BASIC Stamp 1 microcontroller module was released. In 1995, the BASIC Stamp 2 module was added to the product lineup.
But at the end of the day, does it matter ?
Folks like the PICAXE range of chips and use them.
That is what counts.
I'm not a Google Warrior like Westy so I can't tell you about dates, but at a guess, I think you'll find Stamp compatibility was intended. Something in 'Options' sort-of-nearly-almost confirms that...
And, after all, trying to drag people from Stamp to PICAXE is a sensible idea.
Both were originally basic hobby/student level and PICAXE is far,far better value for money - so seems sensible thing to do.
Even the slightly quirky syntax for DIRs has been replicated so thats bit of a giveaway
I'm not quite sure how MikroElektronika got dragged in as the code structure is miles different to the 'traditional' structure of PICAXE and Stamp. I'm not a big fan of M.E. Basic (or any of their compilers) anyway, though I haven't used it for a couple of years.
I know of one other compiler which follows a similar structure too.
And, after all, trying to drag people from Stamp to PICAXE is a sensible idea.
Both were originally basic hobby/student level and PICAXE is far,far better value for money - so seems sensible thing to do.
Even the slightly quirky syntax for DIRs has been replicated so thats bit of a giveaway
I'm not quite sure how MikroElektronika got dragged in as the code structure is miles different to the 'traditional' structure of PICAXE and Stamp. I'm not a big fan of M.E. Basic (or any of their compilers) anyway, though I haven't used it for a couple of years.
I know of one other compiler which follows a similar structure too.
Well, whoever started first, when companies are creating interpreters and compilers and they are using such an abundance of the same commands, references, and structures, doesn't that cause copyright violations? Even if the packaging is different, if the "core" is basically the same throughout, it would seem to me that might cause legal concerns.
Dunno. SEP/NMP.
As these things have been going for many years wouldn't you have thought that a money-grabbing lawyer would have checked this out already??
I doubt if you are the first to ponder.
There may be some amateur legal-beagles here who may wish to expand. (Obv they won't be solicitors or lawyers as they'd charge you £200 for a reply )
As these things have been going for many years wouldn't you have thought that a money-grabbing lawyer would have checked this out already??
I doubt if you are the first to ponder.
There may be some amateur legal-beagles here who may wish to expand. (Obv they won't be solicitors or lawyers as they'd charge you £200 for a reply
)westaust55
Moderator
There are standards for various languages.
ANSI or IEEE in the US and no doubt IEC/DIN or others in Europe.
These organisations set rules and program structures for the primary commands for the various programming languages be it BASIC, COBOL, ALGOL, FORTRAN, LISP, C, and likely any other you may care to mention.
The whole idea is that the core program sections in the same language should be somewhat portable.
Then dependant upon the computer/processor and other hardware those who then write the compliers or interpreters may add some extra commands.
These extras specific to a given compiler/interpreter can be based on the naming convention of a processor port or feature. When the next software author/company comes along they is entitled to do pretty much the same.
Hence, similarity is to be expected rather than astounded over
EDIT:
consider for BASIC:
ANSI X3.60-1978 "FOR MINIMAL BASIC"
ANSI X3.113-1987 "PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES FULL BASIC"
ANSI or IEEE in the US and no doubt IEC/DIN or others in Europe.
These organisations set rules and program structures for the primary commands for the various programming languages be it BASIC, COBOL, ALGOL, FORTRAN, LISP, C, and likely any other you may care to mention.
The whole idea is that the core program sections in the same language should be somewhat portable.
Then dependant upon the computer/processor and other hardware those who then write the compliers or interpreters may add some extra commands.
These extras specific to a given compiler/interpreter can be based on the naming convention of a processor port or feature. When the next software author/company comes along they is entitled to do pretty much the same.
Hence, similarity is to be expected rather than astounded over
EDIT:
consider for BASIC:
ANSI X3.60-1978 "FOR MINIMAL BASIC"
ANSI X3.113-1987 "PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES FULL BASIC"
Last edited: