Sorry Picaxe but I'm leaving you for someone new

matherp

Senior Member
#1
This is a paraphrasing of what was originally posted - hippy

Well not completely. I will still use the 08M2 and possibly the 14M2 but I am finding the bigger chips no longer have the capabilities which I need for my projects so I am having to choose alternatives.

Those products provide support for 64-bit integers, floating point numbers and strings, have more program and data memory, plus the ability to run compiled C or assembler code when speed is required.

It would be nice if the PICAXE supported all those things but they do not so it seems I have outgrown them and have to go elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

Buzby

Senior Member
#2
Hi matherp,

Sorry to see you go, but I can see why.

I mentioned a few years ago that the PIC hardware had now far surpassed the PICAXE firmware.
The target market for PICAXE is never going to disappear ( i.e. education ), but the hobbyist now has a much wider choice.

No amount of fancy PE front-end can mask the underlying limitations of the PICAXE architecture.
As it is I still like to 'push the envelope' on a PICAXE for fun, but 'real' big projects use a different platform.

Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.

Buzby
 

matherp

Senior Member
#4
I see we are not allowed to discuss Picaxe limitations and alternatives, my post has been deleted - one more reason not to use Picaxe if the powers that be are so insecure
 

Buzby

Senior Member
#5
'Cleaned-up' version of matherp's deleted text.

~~~~~

" Sorry Picaxe but I'm leaving you for someone new

Well not completely, I'll still use the 08M2 and possibly the 14M2 but the bigger chips can no longer complete

with the new interpreted Basic available " ... elsewhere ... - faster , cheaper and much much more powerful.


Last edited by matherp; Today at 17:05.

And by Buzby, a bit later.,
 

Janne

Senior Member
#6
I read the OP before it was edited.. I can't help but wonder why it was deleted?
After all, what OP wrote is a normal thing to happen - learn the "basics" (heh) with picaxe, and then migrate to a more powerful chip / enviroment. At least that's how I've always seen picaxe, a great learning tool, but for any serious business it's better to move on to other things. With all the lacking features of programming editor(don't get me wrong, the x2 and m2 series chips are packed with nice features, but the picaxe basic from stone age is hell), I'm quite sure that's how the developers also see it. So instead of censor, I think it would be better to allow discussion about the next steps.
 

hippy

Technical Support
Staff member
#7
I see we are not allowed to discuss Picaxe limitations and alternatives, my post has been deleted - one more reason not to use Picaxe if the powers that be are so insecure
That is certainly not the case though the manner of such discussion and the language used does have a bearing on how posts are dealt with.

We have a policy that no advertising is permitted and, while incidental mention of non Rev-Ed product is tolerated, your post over-stepped that line.
 

Goeytex

Senior Member
#8
I read matherp's original post and it read like an advert for the other product rather than a discussion of "Picaxe limitations and alternatives".
 
#9
Not just an advert, but very close to blatant spam for a non-Rev Ed product.

Sometimes I think members here forget than this is a forum about, and funded by, a specific manufacturer to support their product. I'm amazed at the tolerance shown to brief forays into discussions about competing products, but a post running to many paragraphs extolling the virtues of a competing product seems bang out of order to me (and I did read it before it was deleted and go and look at the rather meagre offering of the supposed competition, particularly the rather poor documentation).
 
Last edited:

marks

Senior Member
#10
Dam i missed it lol.
But theres so much you can do with the picaxe
its also this forum that makes it so good we all learn a great deal from each other.
Tho it is interesting the ideas seen here first pop up on other platforms in publications
and similiar products in the market.
but the picaxe range allows many to to these things themselves easily
its apity it doesn't get promoted more!
 

tony_g

Senior Member
#11
as all of us know the picaxe does have limits compared to other platforms or languages but those limitations are well known by all who use the chips on a regular basis and that is down to making the whole language and process easier for newcomers to learn.

prior to picaxe i had no understanding of programming or any other aspects that come with this hobby and now i am happily making my own custom circuits for my RC models and occasionally custom designs for other local modellers and doing some fun stuff with them, i recently started to play/learn to use the pics in their native form and that has opened my eyes to how much work the picaxe interpreter does behind the scenes for so many functions that get used regularly.

doing something simple like pulsin with the picaxe supprised me as to how much i had to do with the raw pic to do the same thing,even using the simplest method of the timer 1 gate feature.

even now as im looking to use the pics in their raw form the picaxe will still be something i will use regularly as it is so quick to be able to prototype test and have a finished working circuit that does what i need in a minimal time frame.

sometimes the limitations of the speed overheads can be annoying but one thing i have learned from using the picaxe and the forum is that you can quite often to a point work around it with some thinking and clever/manipulative coding.

for many years of RC modelling i always wanted to be able to make my own custom circuits and gadgets to be able to control from my transmitter and add just a touch more scale realism and once i found the picaxe system i was able to do just that.

i know everyone has their own opinion and that is fine were all entitled to that but for me the picaxe can happily do what i need to ask of it within reason and that allows me to really enjoy my main hobby and if need be any other aspects of everyday life when i need to create something unique to do a specific task


tony
 

darb1972

Senior Member
#13
I am no guru on this subject, but I am yet to find a project or problem that the PICAXE can't handle. I also value the assistance on this forum and rarely (if ever) have I come across a problem where someone finally said "no, it can't be done with PICAXE". There has always been a work around.

Moving forward, I am sure that RevEd will continue to improve design to keep up with trends. I am certain that an X3 or M3 series would impress us with new and/or improved features.

The complexity of designing and writing firmware for PICAXE must be a nightmare. To take such a complex environment and turn it into a user friendly platform, is, in my opinion, nothing short of amazing.

I remember Hippy telling me that sometimes it is worth "delegating" tasks to certain processors and sometimes a good design isn't about trying to jam everything into on chip (not exactly his words, but you get the picture).

Recently I have started doing that, using slaves for repetitive and mundane tasks. The cost of a PICAXE is so cheap that using several processors is easily doable (even the X2 range). I would love to see an 08M3 (for example) that could be an I2C slave and in my mind that is what makes PICAXE so exciting. The developers listen to their users and often do their best to include new and exciting improvements when they release new products.

I can't wait to see what they bring out next.
 

bpowell

Senior Member
#14
prior to picaxe i had no understanding of programming or any other aspects that come with this hobby and now i am happily making my own custom circuits for my RC models and occasionally custom designs for other local modellers and doing some fun stuff with them, i recently started to play/learn to use the pics in their native form and that has opened my eyes to how much work the picaxe interpreter does behind the scenes for so many functions that get used regularly.
My thoughts exactly!

I first got started on embedded programming with an OOPIC-R...that was a great board with a nice IDE...but I think they've gone out of business. I'm not sure how I found PICAXE...but I bought a few, and have never looked back! I've whacked together little circuits for the kids, I've build "significant" circuits to monitor my pump-house...and now I've built a pretty cool Binary Clock that gets lots of compliments at work.

I have also played around with raw PIC work...and I agree...you only need to put together a serial output routine, or an I2C routine to recognize how much work the PICAXE does "Under the hood"...I can't believe how many functions are already on the chip waiting to be used...simply amazing!

Personally, I've yet to run into a project that needed more speed than the 08M2 can deliver...I play with the PIC just for fun...but if I need something done quickly, I go to PICAXE.

I'll always keep my eyes open, and I'll look at the other products out there...I'd be remiss if I closed my eyes to other options...but I can't say enough about the PICAXE.

One other thing I have to say...the forum / support for the PICAXE is second-to-none.

If you have a question, you can ask it here, and you'll get a straight answer, often with a helpful explanation!

I've posted my 60 lines of code before, and had Hippy reply within 5 minutes with a single-line command that does the same work I struggled to put together...grrrr!

Try going to the Microchip forum and asking a question...you'll maybe get an answer, but you'll likely take a verbal beating as well..."Read the manual..." "The error is obvious...." "The compiler is *TELLING YOU* what's wrong..." "Check the data sheet..." lots of non-answers like that really up the frustration level.
 
#15
Hi, I've been programming microcontrollers, and microprocessors since the early seventies, and NO system would I ever call perfect. There never will be a perfect system because
projects, demands and technologies are constantly changing. It does seem a trifle daft though to use an 80MHz multi this that and the other to flash leds, when this could be done easier.
As someone with forever relentless arthritis, I appreciate the dil chips, as from a diy point of view smds are out of the question.
As an educational concept the picaxe is ideal, and it always amazes me what someone has managed to get them to do.
I wish picaxes were around in the seventies, one chip replaces dozens.
Have fun, a happy Christmas and new year.
regards john
 
#16
I see the PICAXE as a sort of bridge product, now (for Christmas) I have an X28 board I can see it uses the same form factor of the Ardunio add-on boards and so enabling me to learn on the picaxe and then use or re-use Arduino add-on boards / shields, so that makes the picaxe even better for me but it shows alternate products can work in harmony too.
 

Adamey

Senior Member
#17
doing something simple like pulsin with the picaxe supprised me as to how much i had to do with the raw pic to do the same thing,even using the simplest method of the timer 1 gate feature.

even now as im looking to use the pics in their raw form the picaxe will still be something i will use regularly as it is so quick to be able to prototype test and have a finished working circuit that does what i need in a minimal time frame.
I agree. Forget pulsin, try doing stuff with I2C on a regular PIC and see how frustrating that can be. For me, the ability to set up a master and slave PICAXE and transfer data seamlessly over I2C as easily as writing or reading a variable has been a godsend on many projects and allowed me to divide up tasks between multiple PICAXE's with ease.

Right tool for the right job, I say.
 

bpowell

Senior Member
#18
I'm in the middle of working out the code for a GPS parser on a PIC currently...it's something that would be easy to do with the PICAXE...but it's a bit if a struggle with the PIC and C...but, I need to keep my brain active...so it's a good thing.
 

srnet

Senior Member
#20
Not sure how you can "advertise" a "product" that is free and which no-one makes any money off but I accept the censure
You go on the web page and its clear that the guy is selling stuff, including programmed chips.

Doubt he is set up entirely as a 'not for profit' organisation and draws no wages or expenses from the business.

Clearly someone who says I am not going to use product x because product y in (in thier opinion) is better, is advertising product y.
 

matherp

Senior Member
#21
"You go on the web page and its clear that the guy is selling stuff"

AFAIK GG has no financial interest in any of the organisations he lists as suppliers and certainly not "m...m....org" which you may suspect.

When I asked him about building a previous project commercially he wouldn't accept any sort of royalty, only a attribution.

To answer other points raised, the whole point of my decision is that the new "product" does hide the hardware just as well as Picaxe but overcomes nearly all of the limitations that I have spent hours previously coding round - long (64-bit) signed integers, floating point, full strings and calling compiled modules if required.

What I would really like to see is RevED saying "Watch this space - we have something coming too" but the development of the picaxe language seems to have been stalled for some years now.
 
#22
I didn't see the original post as I had so many things to do for Christmas.
Yes, I have a life :)

PICAXE comparisons have been going on here for ages.
Some have been a bit rude and many have been a case of N.S.Sherlock.
Always followed by the deluge of I love PICAXEs.

In terms of choice the bottom line is (my usual) 'Horses For Courses' including one's own ability.

If someone feels they have out-grown Product A then move on. Tell your friends down the pub.
But there's no real reason to be super-critical on Product A's Forum... especially when so much has been learnt with the FREE help from others on the Forum.

I suppose you could argue that any mention of any other product is advertising.
"It's not what you do, it's the way that you do it".

But these posts are ephemeral (fleeting)... few will see this in 2 weeks time and almost none in 2 months time.
Unless we keep bumping it with smart answers - oh damn look what I've just done :)
Forget it, it will have no lasting effects, move on.


PS. I imagine 'temporary deletion' means that the moderator was unsure whether they should really delete it unless one of the Big Boys confirmed the action.
 

tmfkam

Senior Member
#23
Having recently needed to convert a working PicAxe project into a 'raw' PIC project I appreciate more than ever the PicAxe IDE and hardware integration.

I verbally abused MicroChip for not naming the ports of the chip with any logical naming scheme that matched (why GPIO??) any other device and why the IDE gave an error message totally unrelated (TRISB not initialised??) to the fact that I was attempting to use ports that didn't exist.

I found myself repeatedly cursing the major syntactic inconsistencies of 'the other' language.

While trying to get the code written to the PIC I swore at the programmer which insisted the device in the socket didn't match the one I'd specified because of a mistake in the device configuration files provided by the programmer manufacturer.

When the newly converted program failed to work as expected I longed for the 'Debug' command with PicAxe's simple serial connection to the host computer.

But... I needed the speed of a fully compiled program. I finally got that speed but gained a number of grey hairs in the process.

I won't be abandoning the PicAxe for all the reasons I've stated, unless I need that raw speed.
 
#24
But... I needed the speed of a fully compiled program. I finally got that speed but gained a number of grey hairs in the process.

I won't be abandoning the PicAxe for all the reasons I've stated, unless I need that raw speed.
Your mistake was in switching to a raw PIC. I, and several others, have gone the 'italian' Pro Mini route, and found a powerful platform and IDE at an attractive price. This is not an endorsement, simply a statement of fact as I see it.

[Duck!]
 
#25
Your mistake was in switching to a raw PIC. I, and several others, have gone the 'italian' Pro Mini route, and found a powerful platform and IDE at an attractive price. This is not an endorsement, simply a statement of fact as I see it.

[Duck!]
Well, the italian-branded chips might look like an alternative but are you sure you can't get the old Picaxe do the work for you? Not even the 20x2 chip? The price is not that 'right' unless you're buying from eBay and taking the risk of a damaged chip. And yes, I do consider the Picaxe chips to be a bit pricey, let along the P&P costs. The price might seem right for educational usage, but not for DIY usage.
 
Last edited:

tmfkam

Senior Member
#27
I'm not convinced by those 'Italian' chips. A 'prototyped' circuit would at the best require a major circuit redraw to build into a commercial unit that needs to be value for money. The PicAxe 'prototype' circuit is the circuit. It requires no additional support devices, I/O, programming interfaces, oscillators, nothing. I can build a prototype on breadboard, write the software, program it, test it, build it. Done.

I don't think the devices are particularly expensive either. A PicAxe 14M2 costs £2.00 (plus VAT and P&P) from Rapid. A near equivalent PIC 16F1825 costs £1.28 (plus VAT and P&P) from Farnell. Now if you are building a few hundred, that 72p might make a difference (and both devices come down further in price if you buy more) but if you are only making a few (or one) 72p isn't a lot of money.

A little of that 72p will be going to Revolution Education to pay towards the cost of maintaining the wonderful IDE with a superb, fully featured, simulator and debugger, as well as this excellent support forum. Value for money I reckon. The time it took me to convert a relatively trivial PicAxe program to run on that equivalent PIC would easily have paid for a few dozen PicAxe devices. Sadly, the PicAxe in this case just wasn't fast enough.
 

Janne

Senior Member
#28
I'm not convinced by those 'Italian' chips. A 'prototyped' circuit would at the best require a major circuit redraw to build into a commercial unit that needs to be value for money. The PicAxe 'prototype' circuit is the circuit. It requires no additional support devices, I/O, programming interfaces, oscillators, nothing. I can build a prototype on breadboard, write the software, program it, test it, build it. Done.
For a finished design an Arduino (or plain AVR chip) does not necessarily need anything else besides a decoupling capacitor. It can run perfectly fine on its internal oscillator. You can also program the part with an external RS232 cable if you don't want to include a built-in usb to serial converter. Remember, the Arduino is nothing more than a plain AVR chip that has been preloaded with the open source Arduino bootloader.. If you so desire you can buy plain AVR chips and stuff the bootloader in there by yourself. This also means it's guaranteed you can source new chips far into the future, so there is no need to update your design just because some parts can no longer be obtained.. something which cannot be said of the Picaxe, as there is only one vendor for the chips with the proprietary bootloader in there. (Don't know if they can deliver older chips with special order, though..)

Thinking about chip performance, for me the Picaxe usually has far more resources than what my projects demand. But the huge problem with Picaxe for me is the programming. It's just horrible trying to build a program that is more complex of a LED blinker, without having such things as local namespace or variables. Not to even mention the other pitfalls, such as lacking support for signed integers, 32-bit variables etc. I want the compiler to work for me allocating variables and handle passing and receiving values from sub-procedures, not the other way around of me keeping tabs of all such stuff. It's actually guite close to programming something in assembler (shrug).

Still, I'm thankful for the Picaxe of getting me into playing with microcontrollers, and that still is the strong point of the concept. The entry level packages are so cheap, that it's quite useful in convincing newbies that programming microcontrollers is actually quite fun. I would 100% recommend them for introductionary courses to the subject.
 
#29
I generally agree.
The benefits of PICAXE are well documented as this kind of thread appears regularly and the discussions end up being very similar.
Here we go again... :)

The PICAXE 'system' is an excellent option and will suit hobbyists and education - the clue is in the Company name. It can provide a solution and is relatively easy to get something up and running. It's relatively inexpensive and uses reliable hardware. For some it is a stepping stone to bigger and better things. I'm sure many are grateful for the introduction - well, they should be :)
Offerings from other Companies may provide a system which some may prefer. You pays yer money...

Obviously, for some, a 'better' device is required.
('Better' = more appropriate/suitable).
And that will require a step-up in the user's skill level wrt hardware and code writing.

When you get to the more nitty-gritty compiler level the user will actually have to read Microchip datasheets. Incomprehensible to some, which is why PICAXE is so good.
Naming conventions in compilers will follow those used in the Data Sheet e.g. GPIO, TRISIO on a 12F etc.
This lines up with the Microchip config data. Many people struggle.
Older PICAXE seemed similar to Stamp, whereas the newer ones are much closer to PIC names.

So, again (yawn), 'Horses for Courses'.
If you need/want/have to move on up then get on with it, don't indulge in a urinal contest.
But, based on previous occasions, being rudely critical about where you learnt the basics isn't really necessary. In fact, it gets quite boring.
 

Goeytex

Senior Member
#30
yawn .......

Horses for courses. Use what works. yada yada yada

I hate "fanboyism" . It makes smart people look really stupid and stupid people look sub-moronic.
 

premelec

Senior Member
#31
Well I'm sticking with my 6C4s and 555s :) - but seriously I enjoy knowing what else is around in the marketplace and have stayed with PICAXEs for what I do... I suspect the original post was about a product/project Manuka mentioned a number of times - but I missed the original post... empiricism is OK
 

matherp

Senior Member
#32
Ok I'll have one more go at providing some information and feedback without advertising and then give up:

First, I started programming in 6809 assembler more years ago than I care to remember and I was programming PICs using compilers such as Sourceboost before I discovered PICAXE. I'm perfectly capable of configuring the PIC hardware from the datasheet but it is always a pain in the a..e and much more longwinded than doing the same thing on Picaxe.
Picaxe does all that stuff for us which makes developing many applications much quicker and easier. Picaxe is well documented and this forum is great. If you search for my username I think you will find that I've contributed a significant amount of code as well as asking for and receiving advice. Because I'm "old-school" I don't use the PICAXE simulator as I'm used to developing and debugging code using flashing LEDs/Print statements/etc.

This thread was never intended to be about Picaxe relative to Arduino or any other compiled environment (or language). I find the Picaxe interpreted Basic environment can solve most problems and is very fast to develop. Until very recently PICAXE had no competition in this space (there are some Picaxe-like clones around but all look to be cheap and nasty imitations).

As I said in my original post, I will continue to use 08M2 and 14M2 which still have no competition.

So the title relates to my previous use of the X2 parts. RevEd have always been quick to move the Picaxe environment onto new chips like the 18F25K22 (28X2) as they become available. However, as has been said before on this forum in a number of different threads, they have not chosen fully to exploit the extra power of these chips by developing the picaxe language even though these chips now have plenty of extra space for firmware. Recently available from Microchip are parts like the PIC32MX170. This particular 32-bit chip is available in a 28-pin DIP like the 28X2 (also a 44-pin SMD) but has 256 KB Flash and 64 KB SRAM available.

One clever individual has ported Microsoft's GW-Basic (with some limitations but many enhancements) to the PIC32MX170. This is an interpreted Basic like Picaxe and the Basic does all the hardware set up for you - like Picaxe. The Basic implementation has four key features that set it apart from Picaxe: 64-bit signed integer arithmetic; floating point arithmetic; functions and subroutines with proper parameter passing and local variables; the ability to call compiled functions written in C or assembler.

From my perspective, these features and my experience of spending 10-days intensively using the code as part of the beta program, have led me to make the decision that I will not use X2 parts as currently supplied going forward. I can do more faster with product B.

Now, perhaps I should have just kept quiet and gone away but I am a great supporter of Picaxe and have posted many times in other places promoting it. Picaxe has both an education and hobbyist market but in this inter-connected world of Pi-s and Arduinos etc. all competing for our limited resources I don't want to see Picaxe go the way of the British motor cycle industry so I started this thread to raise again the issue of Picaxe language development.

It may be I am wrong in my analysis and that the Picaxe market is completely secure - if so fine. But I would really like to see RevEd engage with the debate (I'm happy to be contacted out-of-forum) about moving the language forward and really utilising the power of the new silicon.

Peter
 
#33
I can understand the attraction of another device, as, i'm sure, can others. For me, as someone who has also worked on lots of different micro systems over the years (from 6800 in assembler through the short-lived Scorpion series, through to the Picaxe (with some big stuff done in Fortran etc on the DEC range)), The only thing I really miss is being stuck with integer math. The option of having 32 or 64 bit floating point would be a godsend, as i've lost count of the times I've had to faff around writing spreadsheets to fiddle integer math solutions for things that could have been done natively had the Picaxe had floating point.

Speed has been a rare issue, but 99% of the the time the newer Picaxe chips are more than fast enough for pretty much anying I want to do.

I like the code, too. the couple of years I spent coding for the Scorpion range, in their object-oriented Pascal code variant nearly drove me to distraction.

The final really big attraction with the Picaxe range is that I can use an 08M2 to do something really dead simple and very affordable, like a state machine, yet still use the same code knowledge and experience to make some pretty complex control systems.

The Micromite looks nice for complex stuff, but I'd rather stick with just a single product and code format, just to save having to chop and change systems.

If Rev Ed upgraded Picaxe basic to include floating point numbers of a reasonable size I'de honestly never see any need to look at any other chips.
 
#34
I have been programing and designing interface circuits since the old days of PDP-8 minicomputer. I have done many computers and micro-computers in assembly language, Basic, C,and even the long forgotten fortran. I am retired and now it is only a hobby or simple design for someone else. The PicAxe chips have been really fun using and I will not give them up to use another unless forced to, and only that once. As others have said, writing and debugging I/O routines for things like I2C, special interface communications, and even simple RS232 can be a real hair pulling experience in assembly, just setting up the proper control registers can be confusing and sometimes down right difficult.
Since I only do it for hobby, chip cost is not important. I am still amazed how much stuff is packed into a picAxe and how superb the documentation has been. And most important is the help you can get on this forum.
As for floating point, if I really need it for some complex computations (like astronomical calculations, which I have done in Basic) guess I will interface a PicAxe with a separate FP chip.
 

Buzby

Senior Member
#35
Personally I think PICAXE is not going to move forward from it's present position.

Why ?, because a PICAXE is like a tin of baked beans.
A tin of beans serves it's purpose exactly, and there is a continuous supply of new customers entering the target market.

In a way, Rev-Ed is a bit like Mothercare or ELC. These outfits sell plenty of the Little Tikes Cozy Coupe, but don't sell even such a thing as a Fiat 500. They don't need to.

While I would like to see an X3 range, I can't see why Rev-Ed would need to make it.


You can't beat PICAXE for rapid development and support, but it does become laborious if you need something not inherently included in the language.
So I shall continue to to use PICAXE where PICAXE fits, and something else if I need more speed, or floating point, or real arrays, or strings.
 
#36
I'm not a Programmer or University graduate, but I can make stuff using PICAXEs that I would never have been able to do before.
I'm not sure what I would use 64 bit math for, but I think the Micromegas FPU that works well with PICAXE is (and I'm sure others will agree) the best kept secret out there.
With it I haven't found a task, so far, that I couldn't do with a PICAXE. Sure it's not the fastest thing available but It has served me OK.
 

Goeytex

Senior Member
#37
I would stab myself in the face (repeatedly) before adding a Micromega FPU to a Picaxe in order to get 64-bit maths/ floating point support. It is a best kept secret for a good reason. It is expensive, complicated, and slow. If I need 64-bit maths/floating point support (sometimes/rarely) I choose a platform and a language that support it.

But, If all I know or all I ever care to know is "all things Picaxe" then I suppose it makes some sort of sense.

I like Picaxe and use it quite a bit, but it amazes me (for example) that Rev-Ed, after once committing to add math bracket support for X2. And even put it in the manuals for several years while unsupported , could not (over those same several years), figure out how implement it into the X2 firmware.
 
Last edited:

manie

Senior Member
#38
It is nice to read this LENGTHY post and leads me to say the following.....

I have programmed computers in all sorts of BASIC/Fortran/Pascal (which I liked....) but prefer BASIC. If BASIC does not work try ENGLISH...... If the maths cant be done in the chip or the compiler/interpreter then that is so... get something that can do it. There is always the FPU sold by RevEd to do this, how I do not know yet but I guess I will find out when I need to. As to speed, the 28X1 with 4MHz was a heck of a lot faster than I was back then, now there is 64MHz on the 20x2 on internal clock...... I say, that is PLENTY fast.

I would also like to see 32-bit (even 64-bit) signed integers on Picaxe. As well as Floating Point calc's. It would be VERY nice, but I would like to retain the EASE of programming and debugging a Picaxe chip. So RevEd, how about it ?

In the meantime, with the projects I have going, the (lately) 20x2 seems to be OK, the 28x2/40x2 with their 4 slots is always available should you want more.
 

srnet

Senior Member
#39
I would always start assuming that Rev Ed are the experts in understanding what the market for their products is.

It follows then, that as commercial company, perhaps they don't see an X3 as making a profit, taking into account development and support costs.

Armchair marketing experts might well disagree.
 

SAborn

Senior Member
#40
Firstly good on the OP to start this thread and open a discussion to the subject, and it would seem many are happy with the basic picaxe for the average junk project, and i am too.

Some time back i did ask when Picaxe had intended to get on the 32 bit chip band wagon and produce a Big Boys Chip, like others are including the Maximite that also uses a form of basic for programming.

That question was never answered by RevEd.

The picaxe is great for doing quick simple projects, but there comes a time where a project needs a greater speed or ability and would be nice to see a product from RevEd to offer this, or many will just move on to these other options anyway, as i see many old Picaxe members have done this and moved onto other forums like the maximite or minimite.

Due to RevEd not even making a comment here suggests they have nothing to add on future development and just intend to feed the gravy train as long as it lasts before they get bumped off by a better product at a cheaper price, ............ sad i think!!
 
Top