[PD] Re: controlling robots/printers w/ PD

[Phil Stone]

First time posting to this list: seeing this discussion about PIC's and PIC development, I have to introduce this wonderful software community (PD) to an equally wonderful hardware/software community (MIDIBox).  See http://www.ucapps.de/ and http://midibox.org  for an incredible array of free-to-use and well supported PIC projects, concentrating on live control of MIDI devices.

One of many cool developments on this site is PIC chips preprogrammed with a bootstrap loader, which allows one to reprogram the PIC through MIDI!  PC boards and all the code you need to get going are here for free (for non-commercial use only).


Phil Stone
Davis, California


Ian Smith-Heisters wrote:


>B. Bogart wrote:
>
>>> 
>>> Once still has to deal with ports and registers, so I guess there is
>>> only so much wrapping that they can do. But also the basic interpreter
>>> actually runs on the PIC on the stamp!!! pretty amazing.
>
>
>The thing that gets me is the price of the Stamps. PICs range from 1USD 
>all the way up to about 7USD, whereas stamps are at something like 
>40-60USD. Of course you need the programmer for the PICs, but that's a 
>one time cost. But I'm sure you know that with the whole AID project. 
>Speaking of which, I want to build the AID board one of these days.
>
>But I do think Stamp BASIC is easier than assembler, though I've only 
>seen Stamp BASIC, never tried it.
>
>
>>> 
>>> Windows only yes.
>>> 
>>> For HW microcontroller stuff is... I heard about some linux toolkits for
>>> programming chips, but I don't think there is one for PICs... I can't
>>> remember the other manufacturer. AM something...
>>> 
>
>
>There *is* one for PICs that I've heard some good things about. It was 
>posted to the PIClist a couple days back, but I've deleted the message. 
>It may have been at gputils.org They're also working on a new language 
>for the PIC that would make it much easier to program.
>
>But I think assembler is much maligned; it's actually easier than higher 
>level languages in some ways. And of course there are a half dozen C 
>compilers for PIC + Windows, and even an OSS Python compiler--if you 
>don't mind not using the more modern PIC18.
>
>Of course now I'm getting way OT, sorry.
>
>-Ian
>
>
>>> B.
>>> 
>>> Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
>>> 
>>
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, B. Bogart wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> One programs the BASIC stamp in BASIC, hence the name. No assembler
>>>>>>> required.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My impression of BASICstamp's BASIC is that it's damn close to assembly
>>>>> language. The use of the name "BASIC" is more marketing than anything
>>>>> else. It's there to attract a generation of artists who are learning how
>>>>> to code and solder in a fit of DYI-ness and are the right age to have
>>>>> tried BASIC as a kid in a way that makes them nostalgic about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there even a Linux interface for uploading to the BASICstamp ? I think
>>>>> I recall it's Windows-only.
>>>>>
>>>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Mathieu Bouchard -=- Montréal QC Canada -=- http://artengine.ca/matju
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
-