PICAXE Popularity

[john2051]

Hi, all this talk of 'nano' , at cursory glance I thought they were referring to the Basicmicro nano, which is yet another picaxe
clone. As far as I can tell the only real advantage if any is the 32 bit floating point arithmetic, and a quoted 33000 basic instructions
per second. They even do a 40x !
They say immitation is the best form of flattery!

regards john

 

[MFB]

Whilst visiting Maplins today I noticed that they not only stock the Arduino Uno and Mega's but quite a range of shields. This is step in the right direction for Maplin and I expect they should sell more books and electronic components for those Arduino projects. What a pity the PICAXE could not have been stocked by Maplin.

 

[Buzby]

Maplins near me stocks Raspberries as well !

 

[oracacle]

I hardly read any of that, but i have just finnished something that maybe relavent to simos' project - a clock with a thermometer using 4 multiplexed 7 segment displays. it maybecome an alarm clock too at some point but not for a while yet

http://www.picaxeforum.co.uk/showthread.php?22922-Transistors-for-multiplexed-display

hope this helps simo

 

[mrburnette]

<...>
Do they (Parallax) get such regular criticism or do the users just get-on-with-it and move moanlessly to a 'better' uC as they develop?
Both have tremendous hobby and Forum support.

@Dippy: Interesting thought. I've expended some energy this morning while consuming my 1st cup of coffee and did a little research since I am Parallax "ignorant" since the days of the Stamp I / II, both of which I collectively owned about 10 units.

I visited the Parallax site, the discussion forums, and Wikipedia. There is "evidence" to suggest that the Parallax Propeller product does have some serious criticism. For example, in Wikipedia, this quote emerged:

There is also a C compiler available from ImageCraft, the ICCV7 for Propeller. It has been marked to End Of Life state.[12] It supports the 32K Large Memory Model, to bypass the 2K limitation per cog, and is typically 5 to 10 times faster than standard SPIN code.[13] A free ANSI C compiler called Catalina is also available.[14] It is based on LCC.

In the Propeller forum relating to compiler tools, this note:

The Ultimate List of Propeller Languages
The list has grown too large to maintain on the Parallax Forum.
Discontinued

In my mind, when you see a statement like this, you have to wonder about the Parallax supplied tools: ultimate-list

The most comprehensive source of programming languages for the Parallax Propeller Chip - Total: OVER 239 Languages & Versions

Someone out there in Parallax-Propeller-Land is not happy with the supplied compiller/tools.

In thinking about Rev.Ed. with their proprietary firmware under firm control , one must consider that there is some value associated with the stability of the GUI/tool set. Such stability probably is very valuable to Educators who rely on printed documentation since User Interface changes play havoc with learning materials. Rev.Ed. +1.

But power users are likely to be displeased with the progress made with Programming Editor for the PICAXE family. But even Arduino seems to set their GUI releases in sync with hardware platforms and my prior work knowledge from working in IT is that such tool cycles are most common.

To the core of your inquiry, " regular criticism, would seem to be a normal phenomena that is not PICAXE-centric. Arduino gets their share of criticism, for certain. But where Rev.Ed. is different is that with PICAXE the user/developer really have few options available to use other compilers since the magic is not open-source architecture. To Rev.Ed.'s credit, they do have Logicator.

- Ray

 

[Dippy]

That's interesting... though I was really comparing PICAXE BASIC with Stamp BASIC as they are both in the education/hobby bracket.
I'm very much out of date with Stamp Stuff (I tried one of each once); have Parallax released their firmware as Open Source?

I've no experience of Propellor as I had assumed that was in the next league up.

239 versions? Lordy, how confusing . That must make cut'n'paste code pinching by students a nightmare
"Someone out there in Parallax-Propeller-Land is not happy with the supplied compiller/tools."
- well it looks to me like someone isn't happy with 238 versions
I think I'll stick to PICs and Infineon Tricores.

 

[John West]

Srnet's post #67 sums it up for me. Although PICAXE number crunching can get ugly in a hurry.

 

[srnet]

Maplins near me stocks Raspberries as well !

The local Tesco has Raspberries.

And tangerines, apples, apricots, blackberries.

 

[womai]

@john hauton,

id you also check out the Basicmicro web forum. Dead as dead can be. About 10 posts per year. The Picaxe forum gets that in less than an hour (on top of being one of the friendliest and most helpful forums I know of!). So just guess which (Picaxe or Basicmicro) I would recommend. Tells me hardly anyone is using the Basicmicro products, no matter how great it supposedly is.

Second, while I stand by what I say about the abilities of (as well as lack of certain features) Picaxe Basic, the compiler is ROCK SOLID - it hasn't crashed on me ever in 8 years; I can't say this about ANY other compiler I use... and on top, I started to get my 8 year old son hooked on Picaxe using Logicator...

 

[nick12ab]

Technical!

Second, while I stand by what I say about the abilities of (as well as lack of certain features) Picaxe Basic, the compiler is ROCK SOLID

Five minutes ago when using a gosub, the compiler told me that the label specified didn't exist.

There was a bit of code between the gosub command and the actual label which was commented out with the #rem and #endrem directives. The label definately wasn't commented out, in fact there was some more code that was not commented out between the label and the commented out code.

Removing the commented out code and the #rem/#endrem directives made the problem go away.

So it is normally 'rock solid', but not completely bug free.

 

[john2051]

@womai

Hi, I hear what you say about basicmicro. I bought one of their stamp clones a few years back, and never
tried it yet. The odd few times I've needed floating point, I've used the i2c co-processors i bought from
tech. I agree about the reliability of p.e. indeed, the times I've had problems with it, its always been my
fault.

regards john & happy new year to all.

 

[laserhawk64]

My 2 cents... take this with a bag of rock salt or two, I've two microcontrollers and plenty of opinion about them and others -- but I've never actually USED one yet!

I've looked at Arduinos and BASIC Stamps -- Arduinos are remarkably expensive for what they can do, IMO -- for $30 one should be able to drive a color LCD at 320x240. That's well beyond an Arduino's capabilities. BASIC Stamps (the I and II models) probably are about the same as an Arduino, and last time I looked (admittedly it's been a couple years), I seem to recall them being nearly twice as expensive to get going! I looked at that Propeller thing, saw that the programming manual was THREE HUNDRED PLUS PAGES, and once I had recovered my jaw from the basement and my eyebrows from orbit, I never looked at it again. That is NOT a beginner's tool, with that kind of literature!

I recently purchased -- for us$5 -- a nifty and relatively powerful device, the new Stellaris Launchpad. (I had grabbed it at the introductory pricing point; IIRC it's up to more like us$15 now.) Unfortunately, to shave pennies off the price, it shipped without a few features I would've liked, such as (eg) real PWM and an MMU. That second one was a biggie -- I'd wanted to build a little bitty computer with it, and no MMU means no extra memory -- the onboard RAM is more cramped than the smallest apartment in NYC. Oh well, I guess I'll find a use for it *someday*... although having 3.3v logic levels (rather a bit unfriendly IMO) doesn't help, either...

And then there's my PICAXE 08M starter kit, which I got to build something from a Make: Magazine article; one of many projects I've wanted to do that didn't happen. It looks incredibly simple to use, it was dirt cheap, and if I ever get around to sitting down with it and DOING SOMETHING FOR PETE'S SAKE, I think I'll have found a new friend

...just something I've been kicking around in my head: any chance that a PICAXE (particularly anything other than the X/X2 parts) can handle a graphic LCD? I got a nifty 128px square model -- a PowerTip PG128128-A, to be specific -- off eBay awhile back, and I'm thinking of doing some nifty stuff with it, if I can make it dance with PICAXE... if that's thread hijacking, I can start a new thread for it. Just, I've done a bunch of those already, and I don't want to start another only to find I've wasted everyone's time.

 

[graynomad]

that Propeller thing, saw that the programming manual was THREE HUNDRED PLUS PAGES,

That's one problem you won't have with Arduino, they have naff-all documentation and what they have is often not good.

I don't use Picaxes but FWIW I think the Picaxe docs are very good.

 

[nick12ab]

Arduinos are remarkably expensive for what they can do, IMO -- for $30

Just because the Arduino with the shield base is the in-your-face option and you have to look further for the 28-pin chip option (which is cheaper than the PICAXE-20X2) doesn't mean that it is very expensive. Most retailers of the Arduino with the shield base also sell it as a 28-pin chip and there's also the option of manually programming an AVR using a parallel port or another Arduino.

This shield base does includes a USB-to-serial converter and a power supply, but I agree that it is overpriced - especially considering they just stuck a linear regulator on it - and there's no need to have the USB onboard - it's just there so that they can sell the board at a higher price and the USB chip is just a programmed £2 microcontroller.

In comparison to the Arduino shield base, the PICAXE shield base is much better value.

one should be able to drive a color LCD at 320x240.

And why can it not?

 

[westaust55]

one should be able to drive a color LCD at 320x240.

Companies such as 4D Systems manufacture serial colour LCD's in such resolutions:
This one is near end of manufacturing life: http://www.4dsystems.com.au/prod.php?id=209
here is the replacement: http://www.4dsystems.com.au/prod.php?id=167

I did an article on getting started with a PICAXE and such a 4 D systems serial colour LCD quite some time ago . . .

 

[Dippy]

Absolutely, often best to 'farm out' intensive Graphic functions to another chip.

Sometimes it's not a question of 'whether' but more of 'how well'.(Speed and space).

A couple of years back I did a GLIC-alike firmware for mono Gra[hic OLED on a PIC 18F.
With careful coding I could get >100 full screen bitwise updates per second - try that with PICAXE.
Horses for courses.

 

[mrburnette]

That's one problem you won't have with Arduino, they have naff-all documentation and what they have is often not good.

I don't use Picaxes but FWIW I think the Picaxe docs are very good.

@Rob: Rob, Rob, Rob... surely you jest (or did Santa not bring you what you asked for this year?)

Documentation is verbose... including the SOURCE CODE for the entire Arduino family. There are more online training materials than any one person could process in a lifetime. The official documentation is (IMO) not as great as the PICAXE but it is certainly adequate: Reference Environment Tutorial UsingAVR
and many, many more references. Since Arduino uses the AVR-GCC compiler, one can resort to pure C or Assembler or mix ANY of C/S/C++ in a project. My Keyboard HID project on Instructables uses all three: Assembler to manage the USB timing and protocol, C for establishing the USB HID table, and C++ to nicely make an object that is very easy to utilize in the Arduino GUI. But mostly, the Arduino source code in the GUI is not much different than PICAXE BASIC.

Everyone seems to like the PICAXE PDF documentation. However one can easily find equivalent materials for the ATmel chips and specifically for Arduino. Perhaps the issue is that there is "too much" information on the Arduino... everything from source code to YouTube videos... some pretty good, IMO.

I like the PICAXE, but the Arduino and clones are here to stay. There is no reason they cannot coexist.


- Ray

 

[mrburnette]

Absolutely, often best to 'farm out' intensive Graphic functions to another chip.

Sometimes it's not a question of 'whether' but more of 'how well'.(Speed and space).

A couple of years back I did a GLIC-alike firmware for mono Gra[hic OLED on a PIC 18F.
With careful coding I could get >100 full screen bitwise updates per second - try that with PICAXE.
Horses for courses.

Absolutely. One of the challenges that engineers deal with is selecting the correct one or correct multiple chips to build-out a system. Underlying commercial efforts are cost constructs for parts, manufacturing costs, reliability, and if appropriate maintainability/repairability. Somewhere in all of these "corporate demands" are the project functions and marketing goals. Corporate design is complex because there are so many masters to please.

In hobby electronics, some of the best practices from commercial may be considered and using the right chip(s) for the right purpose is critical. If the graphic display selected is only pixel-buffered (that is, cannot be controlled in a serial text ASCII mode) then the PICAXE is an unlikely host because there is not an easy way to build the display buffer. PICAXE is however an ideal and inexpensive way to manage a character-based LCD/OLED and requires little coding overhead since RevEd has incorporated the low-level serial text routines in the firmware.

Whether you utilize PIC or ATmel, moving away from the PICAXE to raw silicon, the color graphic controller can easily be built in C/C++. I'm running a 3.5" touch-color screen on a $2 ATmega328P and the uC support circuitry is about $1. Of course, I have an external 5V input for power. While I have not personally worked with PIC and color touchscreens, I can envision no particular reason that would preclude such a software port.

As you think about using complex hardware, follow Dippy's recommendations and purchase/construct interfaces to minimize your application logic coding... then the PICAXE will likely perform wonderfully.

- Ray

 

[IronJungle]

Picaxe Basic, the compiler is ROCK SOLID - it hasn't crashed on me ever in 8 years

You must not use MacAXEPad.

 

[MFB]

I found Womai's succinct comments, on page 8, about Basic -v- 'C' very interesting and in line with my conclusions. That PICAXE Basic is efficient for short microcomputer programmes but 'C' should be considered for more than a few pages. I notice that he uses Mikroelektronica Basic and 'C' compilers and would like to know how he rates these compared with the PICAXE IDE. My first impression is that they look rather complex (and powerful?) development tools.

 

[laserhawk64]

To clarify: when I said that an Arduino should be able to drive a 320x240 display at its price point, what I was trying to say was...

"I would expect ANY microcontroller that retails at us$30 for the starter board and chip, to be completely capable of running a QVGA (320x240) display with 256 colors, and do it well."

For example, I have a game I love called Reversi. I was introduced to it, by the name Roman Checkers, on a computer at least as old as I am -- a Tandy TRS-80 Color Computer (specifically the Model II). This was a two-person game with decent graphics for the era (four or five colors IIRC plus simple sprites) and primitive sound -- place a piece (sprite) and it would go DOODLE-BLEEP at you -- and I would expect that for $30 plus minimal supporting hardware (screen and input switches and MAYBE a switch debouncing circuit) I would be able to replicate that game quite easily. I should by no means need additional silicon at that price point.

IRL, I've been told that if I want to drive anything more than a game of pong (no color, and on a MUCH tinier display, resolution-wise), I need to look at other microcontrollers, or add some sort of display controller that's more powerful than anything ATMEGA, and likely more expensive than the Arduino. Hmmm.

 

[nick12ab]

IRL, I've been told that if I want to drive anything more than a game of pong (no color, and on a MUCH tinier display, resolution-wise), I need to look at other microcontrollers, or add some sort of display controller that's more powerful than anything ATMEGA, and likely more expensive than the Arduino. Hmmm.

The Atmega328 is perfectly capable of this. In fact, there exists demo code (for a 128x64 KS0108 LCD) where you use a potentiometer to make a rocket go up and down as asteroids appear at the right of the screen and move to the left with perfect motion. Pong should require less processing power than that.

For example, I have a game I love called Reversi. I was introduced to it, by the name Roman Checkers, on a computer at least as old as I am -- a Tandy TRS-80 Color Computer (specifically the Model II). This was a two-person game with decent graphics for the era (four or five colors IIRC plus simple sprites) and primitive sound -- place a piece (sprite) and it would go DOODLE-BLEEP at you -- and I would expect that for $30 plus minimal supporting hardware (screen and input switches and MAYBE a switch debouncing circuit) I would be able to replicate that game quite easily. I should by no means need additional silicon at that price point.

Since Reversi is just a board game, it's likely that the Atmega328 Arduino would be capable of doing that. Have you tried it?

 

[John West]

OT,
I want to thank Nick and Mrburnette for their info on Nick's (IR remote) blog entry. I had been wondering about the use of "dollar store" universal remotes set up in SONY mode. I'll make a trip to my local Dollar Tree and see if I an snag some remotes. And I'll double check the soldering before I use them.

 

[laserhawk64]

@nick12ab: I'd love to try it... unfortunately, the price point of an Arduino has other issues as well -- I can't afford one!

 

[nick12ab]

@nick12ab: I'd love to try it... unfortunately, the price point of an Arduino has other issues as well -- I can't afford one!

The Arduino shield is a waste of money.

SparkFun sell preprogrammed ATmega328s that you can use like a PICAXE-28X2. It isn't pin-compatible with the 28X2, but all you need to use it is your existing PICAXE download cable & breadboard etc., a low-cost 16MHz crystal/resonator and an inverter IC (4069 works fine, even if RS232 cable is used). You set up the normal PICAXE download circuit and put the inverter on both serial lines between the download circuit and the Arduino.

The Arduino bootloader is open source so if you already have some ATmega328s, you can program your own Arduinos with a parallel port.

Remember that the shield base is the 'in-your-face' option on the Arduino website because (unlike PICAXE) the Arduino company makes their money from the boards whereas Rev-Ed can make money from their closed source firmware too.

 

[mrburnette]

@nick12ab: I'd love to try it... unfortunately, the price point of an Arduino has other issues as well -- I can't afford one!

@laserhawk64: PM me with your mailing address in N.C. I will send you by USPS, cost-free to you, an Arduino project board that I have created based on the 328P using the UNO bootloader. The PIX is what you will get... the cable go to a USB serial adapter, so you will need to install the CP210x drivers appropriate to your OS. I cannot attest to the OS other than WinXP, but they work OK on my Dell. CAVEAT: Just have fun and when you do buy your own board (or construct), just pass this on to another deserving person.

- Ray

 

[premelec]

Happy New Year and thanks everyone for your input and opinions! I really liked womai's post #79 in this thread - gets down to the basics of coding and compilers. I started actual results with BASIC STAMP product [though I had tried a few other tracks - even a PIC seminar by MicroChip] and once I saw Peter Anderson's recommendation of PICAXE it was off to many successes with 08s. STAMPs required external ADC MAX232 and PWM boosts and were more expensive - anyhow PICAXE is a great product for casual users like myself and may they thrive and prosper [and add DDS and direct USB and so forth ]. Go PICAXE!

 

[mrburnette]

OT,
I want to thank Nick and Mrburnette for their info on Nick's (IR remote) blog entry. I had been wondering about the use of "dollar store" universal remotes set up in SONY mode. I'll make a trip to my local Dollar Tree and see if I an snag some remotes. And I'll double check the soldering before I use them.

John:
So far, I have had 100% from the batch of 10 that I purchased months ago. The availability of the units seem to be iffy, not always in stock, which is why I purchased 9 more after I got the 1st one to work

The detector I used came from goldmine back during their 10x for cheap-o sale last year... I suspect other variety will work.
ATmel folks may find this interesting: MIM5383H4 IR Module with ATtiny85 I have also used an 08M2 PICAXE to front-end a more powerful uC so that the IR load can be completely removed from the main processor and handled serially ASCII.

- Ray

 

[laserhawk64]

mrburnette, you have a PM

I have to admit I'm blown away -- this is very nice of you to do this for me! (I guess I'm not used to people doing nice things for me -- probably this is a good thing, in a weird way... I'd be less grateful if I was used to it!)

Let me know if there's something I can do for you in return, and I'll see what I can come up with.

 

[TheChief]

IMO Arduino is primarily aimed at people who have no practical skills ie. soldering, electrical/electronic design or competency.
PICAXE users would normally come from a more practical background and are trying to advance their projects.
Not to say that hardcore electronics buffs don't use the Arduino platform on a "bare metal" basis.

 

[Markbishop16]

Sounds like i should be using Arduino then as I tick all the boxes you stated

 

[IronJungle]

@nick12ab: I'd love to try it... unfortunately, the price point of an Arduino has other issues as well -- I can't afford one!

Really? The Nano clone is $9 and includes mini USB port on board for power and programming. All in a small SMT package with header pins on the convenient and integrated breakout board. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[mrburnette]

IMO Arduino is primarily aimed at people who have no practical skills ie. soldering, electrical/electronic design or competency.
PICAXE users would normally come from a more practical background and are trying to advance their projects.
Not to say that hardcore electronics buffs don't use the Arduino platform on a "bare metal" basis.

@TheChief: Initially, I would agree since the Arduino concept was an educational effort to reduce cost & complexity in teaching. But, evolution and open source hardware&software has moved the products into the mainstream "maker" world.

I recommend everyone to buy one official board to support sanity... when things go askew, having a popular piece of hardware is very valuable. Same advice I give to PICAXErs.

All EE's are going to want to build their own boards for the fun of it. Still nice to have the real thing though for use with breadboarding. Those female shield connectors are perfect for the male-male solder less breadboard jumpers.

I'd be a bit scared to utter the "no practical skills" statement around Arduino users... just like with PICAXE here in the forum, there are more than a few competent folks out in 'duino-land

- Ray

 

[mrburnette]

Really? The Nano clone is $9 andlooking es mini USB port on board for power and programming. All in a small SMT package with header pins on the convenient and integrated breakout board. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

IronJungle... I think the misconception of expensive derrives from the official "retail" pricing. The best Amazon price on the real UNO is around $20. I am a real believer in everyone purchasing at least one official product. Clones can come later as with homemade modules.

The same advice goes to PICAXErs... buy from Rev.Ed. or a licensed reseller. However, the UK shipping costs do put a damper on doing this too often. I was a big Pete Anderson fan and last I looked (60 seconds ago) , the website is still active.

I know some folks hate to deal with Chinese merchants and loooong delivery schedules, but I have noticed that some dealers are enlisting local U.S. resources to ship within the U.S. My last order of 10 nano clones arrived with "free" shipping in 5 days. So, if using eBay look for country-centric sellers even if the main office is in China.

- Ray

 

[mrburnette]

Sounds like i should be using Arduino then as I tick all the boxes you stated

If there is a common thread in this long post, it is to use the right chip for the job at hand. Anyone can learn PICAXE BASIC and anyone can learn C Arduino style. If cost is not a real concern, learn them both and expand your programming vocabulary. If you must stay with one product and your needs are minimum to medium, select PICAXE and it will likely serve you well. IF forum support on a personal basis is important, PICAXE is a true winner.

But, if uC efficiency (Arduino has issues, but are well documented and workarounds are published) the PICAXE does have a lower throughput ceiling from my own personal testing. But, beware, the tools that are used with Arduino are powerful 'nuff that you can brick the microcontroller if you screw-up. In the years I have used PICAXE, I have yet to screw one up from the toolset... one went to heaven in a puff of smoke once, but I was at fault with the wiring.

- Ray

 

[premelec]

I think lot of the appeal to CMITS [common men in the street] of the arduino is simply the mystique of open source and lots of people using them and so forth... in practice a lot of CMITS would get their project going faster with a PICAXE as long as they don't have a lot of experience with compilers, coding, hardware etc... I hope everyone's projects get to working whatever they are using.

I recall Don Lancaster predicting decades ago that the 555 would be obsolete now that we have simple micros... he was conversant with what it took to make a micro act like a 555 - and if you are going into mass production of something a micro can be the route - if you just need one simple pulse generator etc the 555 is a cheaper [time is money ] .....

So what we need perhaps is a better choice tree - table of what you want to do and how fast it needs to be done time schedule to get running etc... A neutral multi-partisan site to advise someone just getting into it to make a good choice rather than buying a lot of stuff which may or may not work out. This comes up indirectly on this forum frequently with regard to people's experience in hardware and software and what they are trying to do. Sometimes it takes 20 posts to get to the OPs ability... OK it's not new but how about some basic form questionaire posters could refer to and register.... I better get out and enjoy the sunshine while it lasts... Back to silent lurk mode - SLM...

 

[Dippy]

I'm still trying to understand what "lower throughput ceiling" means.

And then "neutral multi-partisan" has really messed my cortex.

It took me 3 hours to understand a wonderful American Engineer who (many years ago) looked at a dead bit of equipment and announced that it "is in a state of perpetual non-functionality" i.e. it was dead.

I feel that I'm reaching my office jargon ceiling...
Please can we have subtitles even though it all sounds dead impressive .

 

[premelec]

Well, Dippy, I thought you enjoyed over-clocked hyperbolic obfuscatory palaver - to vacillate lugubriously before choosing the ideal micro is stressful and I hope there will be better information for making the right choice... or is there a right choice? Yours from the lower throughput floor.... [I dropped it - it's there somewhere... ]

 

[eclectic]

Well, Dippy, I thought you enjoyed over-clocked hyperbolic obfuscatory palaver - to vacillate lugubriously before choosing the ideal micro is stressful and I hope there will be better information for making the right choice... or is there a right choice? Yours from the lower throughput floor.... [I dropped it - it's there somewhere... ]

Tee-heee.

 

[mrburnette]

I'm still trying to understand what "lower throughput ceiling" means.
<...>

My failed attempt at alluding to RIS and CIS Computing without actually mentioning RISC & CISC. Goodness knows this thread is polarizing enough without getting into chip architectures! Then there is the whole issue of what RevEd does inside the actual firmware which goes over and above to the 'stuff' that is done in the Arduino C/C++ base libraries. Such things should not concern hobby users beyond the length of the programs they can store in flash.

Me thinks though that you already knew what is all meant, but was just fishin' to see if we would come back for more abuse or choose to sit out this game.


- Ray