AVR-Chat

I noticed a strange new microcontroller called PICAXE in one of the
catalogues i got from Austronics 2005 last week.

After some googling, i found out that PICAXE is actually a PIC with a
bootstrap code from the manufacturer.

Does anyone have ever used PICAXE before? Selling micros with useful
bootstrap codes for easy development is an interesting idea though. I
wonder if there are AVR-AXEs or something like that.

-irfan-
ps: why is AVR much more expensive than PIC in australia? it's the
other way around in indonesia :(

On Sep 18, 2005, at 6:53 PM, Astria Nur Irfansyah wrote:

> ps: why is AVR much more expensive than PIC in australia? it's the
> other way around in indonesia :(

It has everything to do with how deep the local importer wants to  
stick his hand in your pocket.

As a general rule Microchip CPUs cost more than similar AVR in the  
USA. Years ago the tables were the other way around, Microchip was  
inexpensive and available to anybody who asked, Motorola was like a  
buying a used car, had to negotiate a price for parts, and negotiate  
for allocation. Maximized Motorola's short term income while making  
Microchip's fortune.

--
David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net
========================================================================
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.

Astria Nur Irfansyah wrote:

>
>
> Does anyone have ever used PICAXE before? 

Check out http://www.phanderson.com/picaxe/picaxe.html

> Selling micros with useful
> bootstrap codes for easy development is an interesting idea though. I
> wonder if there are AVR-AXEs or something like that.
>
Absolutely there are. BasicX (http://basicx.com/) is the one probably 
most people on this group have heard of which is based on a Virtual 
Machine ( http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/V/virtual_machine.html ) 
architecture. This is quite a powerful chip (much better than 
competitors such as Basic Stamp IMHO) as it include multi-tasking, 
single precision math and exposes most of the AVR chip functionality 
through function and subroutine calls. BasicX chips are based on 
AT90S8335, ATMega8535, AT90S8515 chips and one version is pin compatible 
with the Stamp.

There are several websites and a Yahoo group devoted to BasicX.  You 
might start with BasicX site first. I also have a website with a full 
treatise on the internals of the BasicX platform (or as much as I have 
been able to determine from investigating the chip in detail).

Mike
http://home.austin.rr.com/perks/basicx/

At 09:53 AM 19/09/2005, you wrote:
>I noticed a strange new microcontroller called PICAXE in one of the
>catalogues i got from Austronics 2005 last week.

Not very new, it has been around for a while. Never used it.

Regards

John Samperi

******************************************************
                         Ampertronics Pty. Ltd.
   11 Brokenwood Place Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153 AUSTRALIA
          Tel. (02) 9674-6495       Fax (02) 9674-8745
                Email: samperi@ampertronics.com.au
                  Website  http://www.ampertronics.com.au
* Electronic Design   * Custom Products   * Contract Assembly
******************************************************

I've used PICAXEs.  They're pretty cool.  A nice, cheaper alternative 
to BASIC Stamps.  I don't use them anymore, because I'm much better at 
programming PICs now and PICAXEs, of course, have limitations and 
overhead.

I would definitely recommend them for schools, though.  The cost is 
like 1/4 of what Stamps are.

Mike

Given that this is an AVR forum, not a PIC one, let me plug a product that I
have found very useful:  BASCOM.  A free 4k limit compiler is available and
supports most AVR chips.  The BASIC dialect is plenty powerful, lots of
library support (LCD, one wire, switches, AT keyboard, graphics displays,
etc) and runs circles around anything Parallax has to offer.  Full support
(some specialized libraries and 128k limit) is $60, but I have never run out
of space (granted I only use it for small quick projects).

 

Start at www.mcselec.com <http://www.mcselec.com/> 

 

Bascom is an editor, compiler, downloader and a limited simulator.  The
current crop of AVR chips come with a calibrated 1mhz internal oscillator
(most can easily be bumped to 8mhz and some to 16mhz) so literally a
no-parts (other than the chip,  power and the programming cable which is
little more than a cut up line printer cable) development environment can be
put together for a couple of $$.

 

A mega16 is $6.50 in singles, run it off of three AAA batteries; spend a
little extra on a breadboard, some LEDs and switches and resisters.  How
cheap can you get?? 

 

 

-----------

Larry Barello

www.barello.net

 

  _____  

From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of techy fellow
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 7:06 PM
To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AVR-Chat] Re: (OT) PICAXE

 

Another easy-to-use MCU you can consider is, the SX family distributed by
Parallax (used to be from Ubicom). I suspect Parallax is trying to set a
difference between their expensive part (read, premium), Basic Stamp family
and a low cost version (SX). You will be surprise, SX is quite powerful. The
only caveat is, you have to buy their proprietary SX chip-programmer, the
SX-Key (SX Tech Tool Kit PLUS). Its USD 99.00. But the number of parts in
the package and plus a BASIC compiler that comes free, I think , it value
for money. I compared it with a good Basic program for the PIC which can
cost up to a few hundreds of $ ! 

 

As for the SX chips, it cost only a few $ each. Best of all, Parallax is
selling 2 high quality SX protoboards for a mere USD 9.95 each ! Great for
projects but does require the SX-Key though. Check out their web site (
www.parallax.com )

 

PS: I am not in any way related to Parallax. In fact, I quite dislike them
due to their high priced BS until they lunched the SX. But then again, I
vote with my $.

 

cheers,

upand_at_them <upand_at_them@yahoo.com> wrote:

I've used PICAXEs.  They're pretty cool.  A nice, cheaper alternative 
to BASIC Stamps.  I don't use them anymore, because I'm much better at 
programming PICs now and PICAXEs, of course, have limitations and 
overhead.

I would definitely recommend them for schools, though.  The cost is 
like 1/4 of what Stamps are.

Mike






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

SPONSORED LINKS 


Avr
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Avr+microcontroller&w1=Avr+microcontrol
ler&w2=Microcontrollers&w3=Pic+microcontrollers&w4=8051+microprocessor&c=4&s
=98&.sig=g86_HKNqER2uDVjW9k5qxA>  microcontroller 

Microcontrollers
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Microcontrollers&w1=Avr+microcontroller
&w2=Microcontrollers&w3=Pic+microcontrollers&w4=8051+microprocessor&c=4&s=98
&.sig=oFcL4RTYUPZgTb9KnRA0qg>  

Pic
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Pic+microcontrollers&w1=Avr+microcontro
ller&w2=Microcontrollers&w3=Pic+microcontrollers&w4=8051+microprocessor&c=4&
s=98&.sig=uoydrrm9rLXWB_bzKsqX6g>  microcontrollers 


8051
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=8051+microprocessor&w1=Avr+microcontrol
ler&w2=Microcontrollers&w3=Pic+microcontrollers&w4=8051+microprocessor&c=4&s
=98&.sig=F6bcXXU2SOtJ5tDcWnBGRQ>  microprocessor 

 

 

 

  _____  

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

 

*	 Visit your group "AVR-Chat <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AVR-Chat>
" on the web.
  
*	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 AVR-Chat-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:AVR-Chat-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> 
  
*	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 

 

  _____

Well, you don't have to buy the SX-Key...you can build an SX programmer 
for less: http://www.semis.demon.co.uk/Sx/SXmain.htm

Mike


--- In AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com, techy fellow <techyf@y...> wrote:
> Another easy-to-use MCU you can consider is, the SX family 
distributed by Parallax (used to be from Ubicom). I suspect Parallax is 
trying to set a difference between their expensive part (read, 
premium), Basic Stamp family and a low cost version (SX). You will be 
surprise, SX is quite powerful. The only caveat is, you have to buy 
their proprietary SX chip-programmer, the SX-Key (SX Tech Tool Kit 
PLUS). Its USD 99.00. But the number of parts in the package and plus a 
BASIC compiler that comes free, I think , it value for money. I 
compared it with a good Basic program for the PIC which can cost up to 
a few hundreds of $ !

On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 20:07 -0700, Larry Barello wrote:
> Given that this is an AVR forum, not a PIC one, let me plug a product
> that I have found very useful:  BASCOM.  A free 4k limit compiler is
> available and supports most AVR chips.  The BASIC dialect is plenty
> powerful, lots of library support (LCD, one wire, switches, AT
> keyboard, graphics displays, etc) and runs circles around anything
> Parallax has to offer.  Full support (some specialized libraries and
> 128k limit) is $60, but I have never run out of space (granted I only
> use it for small quick projects).

  Only problem is I have never succeeded in getting anything to compile
in BASCM-AVR.   Has some strange syntactical requirements for declaring
variables, apparently.

tom

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:40:38 -0500 you wrote:

>On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 20:07 -0700, Larry Barello wrote:
>> Given that this is an AVR forum, not a PIC one, let me plug a product
>> that I have found very useful:  BASCOM.  A free 4k limit compiler is
>> available and supports most AVR chips.  The BASIC dialect is plenty
>> powerful, lots of library support (LCD, one wire, switches, AT
>> keyboard, graphics displays, etc) and runs circles around anything
>> Parallax has to offer.  Full support (some specialized libraries and
>> 128k limit) is $60, but I have never run out of space (granted I only
>> use it for small quick projects).
>
>  Only problem is I have never succeeded in getting anything to compile
>in BASCM-AVR.   Has some strange syntactical requirements for declaring
>variables, apparently.

I did contemplate Bascom when I started with AVRs. For me the quality, friendliness and
helpfulness of support was important. I joined a few lists. I found the Bascom list
unfriendly and somewhat dominated by characters I found distasteful. In contrast the CVAVR
list was friendly, helpful and supportive. The ICCAVR list also seemed to be a helpful
place. I haven't found Basic to be a particularly versatile language and avoid it whenever
possible. As things stand I don't see an alternative to C/C++ . If there were a decent and
inexpensive Forth compiler available I would probably have gone for that as I love
screwing up my brain cells with RPN and still use my antique and beloved HP11C and HP16C
calculators.


--
Ralph Hilton
http://www.ralphhilton.org
C-Meter: http://www.cmeter.org
FZAOINT http://www.fzaoint.net

I, and many others here have written hundreds of programs.  There is no 
"strange syntactical requirement" that I'm aware of.  It works just like 
the manual shows, and like you'd expect for a Basic language syntax.

DLC

Thomas Keller wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 20:07 -0700, Larry Barello wrote:
> 
>>Given that this is an AVR forum, not a PIC one, let me plug a product
>>that I have found very useful:  BASCOM.  A free 4k limit compiler is
>>available and supports most AVR chips.  The BASIC dialect is plenty
>>powerful, lots of library support (LCD, one wire, switches, AT
>>keyboard, graphics displays, etc) and runs circles around anything
>>Parallax has to offer.  Full support (some specialized libraries and
>>128k limit) is $60, but I have never run out of space (granted I only
>>use it for small quick projects).
> 
> 
>   Only problem is I have never succeeded in getting anything to compile
> in BASCM-AVR.   Has some strange syntactical requirements for declaring
> variables, apparently.
> 
> tom
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------
Dennis Clark          TTT Enterprises
www.techtoystoday.com
-------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 03:04 +0200, Ralph Hilton wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:40:38 -0500 you wrote:
> >On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 20:07 -0700, Larry Barello wrote:
> >> Given that this is an AVR forum, not a PIC one, let me plug a
> product
> >> that I have found very useful:  BASCOM.  A free 4k limit compiler
> is available and supports most AVR chips. 
> >  Only problem is I have never succeeded in getting anything to
> >compile in BASCM-AVR.   Has some strange syntactical requirements for
> >declaring variables, apparently.
> I did contemplate Bascom when I started with AVRs. For me the quality,
> friendliness and helpfulness of support was important. I joined a few
> lists. I found the Bascom list unfriendly and somewhat dominated by
> characters I found distasteful.

  AMEN to that!  The BASCOM-AVR channel appears, like so many of the IRC
technical support chasnnles, to be primarily populated by teeneaged
dopes who seem to think that anyone who doesn't unbderstand what THEY
(think) they understand is a complete moron and a worthless individual.

>  In contrast the CVAVR list was friendly, helpful and supportive. The
> ICCAVR list also seemed to be a helpful place. I haven't found Basic
> to be a particularly versatile language and avoid it whenever
> possible. As things stand I don't see an alternative to C/C++ . If
> there were a decent and inexpensive Forth compiler available I would
> probably have gone for that as I love screwing up my brain cells with
> RPN and still use my antique and beloved HP11C and HP16C
> calculators.

  *ACK* RPN!  I got more than enough experience with RPN when writing
compilers.  It isn't natural.   *grin*  (RPN ::=  Rarely Natural
Notation)

   Seriously, I am a fan of C (though not so much of C++, at least, not
for embedded code).  I have to confess to a liking for assembler for
embedded projects, but I suspect that is more because I enjoy bit
twiddling and getting down and dirty with the hardware, than anything
else.  *grin*

tom

In reference to BASCAOM-AVR,
On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 22:01 -0600, Kevin wrote:
> I, and many others here have written hundreds of programs.  There is
> no "strange syntactical requirement" that I'm aware of.  It works just
> like the manual shows, and like you'd expect for a Basic language
> syntax.

  I cannot agree.   I have written , over the years, many thousands of
programs, and a wide variety of languages, including any number of
variants of BASIC.   I have never encoutnered the kinds of probl;ems
with a BASIC interpreter or compiler I have had with BASCOM.

  I have gone through the manual, and done exactly what it says to do,
and all I can get back freom the compiler is that perfectly normal
operations, such as, for example, "a = b^3" are illegal, or that my
variables, which are, indeed, declared, do not exist or are of incorrect
type.

   I went to the BASCOM mailing list with these problems, and got
absoutely NOLTHING but verbal abuse from the denizens thereof.  I
downloaded some exampls of BASCOM code, and attempted to emulate what I
found there, and had no success whatever.


  I will grant that the PROBLEM is something I am doing incorrectly, but
I also assert that the declaration requirements are **NOT** BASIC, nor
even BASIC-like, and that the manuals are inadeqaute, and the support
non-existent.

Tom

Hello Ralph,

I'm pretty much into C and assembly but done lots of other ones of a bygone
era like Fortran Algol Basic and others but you mentioned Forth.

In the last ATMEL journal #5 for Summer 2005 there was an article about
qForth on page 46 to support their 4 bit family of MARC4 microcontrollers.
Maybe there are other versions around. Might be something to ask your ATMEL
contact and see what is available if you need such a compiler.

Jim Hatley





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ralph Hilton" <ralph@ralphhilton.org>
To: <AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] Re: (OT) PICAXE


> On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:40:38 -0500 you wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 20:07 -0700, Larry Barello wrote:
> >> Given that this is an AVR forum, not a PIC one, let me plug a product
> >> that I have found very useful:  BASCOM.  A free 4k limit compiler is
> >> available and supports most AVR chips.  The BASIC dialect is plenty
> >> powerful, lots of library support (LCD, one wire, switches, AT
> >> keyboard, graphics displays, etc) and runs circles around anything
> >> Parallax has to offer.  Full support (some specialized libraries and
> >> 128k limit) is $60, but I have never run out of space (granted I only
> >> use it for small quick projects).
> >
> >  Only problem is I have never succeeded in getting anything to compile
> >in BASCM-AVR.   Has some strange syntactical requirements for declaring
> >variables, apparently.
>
> I did contemplate Bascom when I started with AVRs. For me the quality,
friendliness and
> helpfulness of support was important. I joined a few lists. I found the
Bascom list
> unfriendly and somewhat dominated by characters I found distasteful. In
contrast the CVAVR
> list was friendly, helpful and supportive. The ICCAVR list also seemed to
be a helpful
> place. I haven't found Basic to be a particularly versatile language and
avoid it whenever
> possible. As things stand I don't see an alternative to C/C++ . If there
were a decent and
> inexpensive Forth compiler available I would probably have gone for that
as I love
> screwing up my brain cells with RPN and still use my antique and beloved
HP11C and HP16C

> calculators.
>
>
> --
> Ralph Hilton
> http://www.ralphhilton.org
> C-Meter: http://www.cmeter.org
> FZAOINT http://www.fzaoint.net
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thomas,

Thomas Keller wrote:
> In reference to BASCAOM-AVR,
> On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 22:01 -0600, Kevin wrote:
> 
>>I, and many others here have written hundreds of programs.  There is
>>no "strange syntactical requirement" that I'm aware of.  It works just
>>like the manual shows, and like you'd expect for a Basic language
>>syntax.
> 
> 
>   I cannot agree.   I have written , over the years, many thousands of
> programs, and a wide variety of languages, including any number of
> variants of BASIC.   I have never encoutnered the kinds of probl;ems
> with a BASIC interpreter or compiler I have had with BASCOM.

I've encountered problems with embedded programming on every language 
that I've used so far.

>   I have gone through the manual, and done exactly what it says to do,
> and all I can get back freom the compiler is that perfectly normal
> operations, such as, for example, "a = b^3" are illegal, or that my
> variables, which are, indeed, declared, do not exist or are of incorrect
> type.

   You're doing embedded code now, not working on a PC.  Bascom supports 
pretty decent amounts of math, but b^3 is not something that I've used 
in an embedded processor.  Things that that for trancendentals or 
whatever tend to be interpolated from tables, not calculated in the 
limited abilities of little embedded processors.  I do think that Bascom 
has a weird requirement that _no_ implied variables can be used (for 
instance B*3+1 can't be done because there is an implied temporary 
variable needed between the two operations) but that is simple to get 
around, and perhaps enlightening for newcomers to the embedded world to 
not assume anything.

>    I went to the BASCOM mailing list with these problems, and got
> absoutely NOLTHING but verbal abuse from the denizens thereof.  I
> downloaded some exampls of BASCOM code, and attempted to emulate what I
> found there, and had no success whatever.
> 

   Did you go there with an attitude on or "playing nice"?  I will 
guarantee you that if you go to any on-line group with a chip on your 
shoulder you'll get the boot.  Don't EVEN ask a newbie question on the 
guru Java lists!

>   I will grant that the PROBLEM is something I am doing incorrectly, but
> I also assert that the declaration requirements are **NOT** BASIC, nor
> even BASIC-like, and that the manuals are inadeqaute, and the support
> non-existent.

   The manual is as good as Microchip's C18, and what manual do you get 
for GCC?  I've found Mark to be very helpful with bugs.

   I think Bascom is a very good compiler for the money, and a very good 
educational tool for teaching embedded to those that are new to the concept.


IMO, YMMV,
DLC

> Tom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Fair play? Video games influencing politics. Click and talk back!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/T8sf5C/tzNLAA/TtwFAA/dN_tlB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->  Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dennis Clark  dlc@frii.com http://www.techtoystoday.com             *
* "Programming and Customizing the OOPic Microcontroller" Mcgraw-Hill *
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I am surprised by the level of venom regarding the BASCOM support.  The
complaints sound oddly self-referential...  I must admit, however, I rarely
use the support forum since I found BASCOM so easy to use.  The only time it
got a little difficult was trying to write my own library support for an SPI
LCD interface - there is no documentation other than other library source
files...  I ended up talking with the developer of BASCOM to get what I
needed.

Anyway, I still maintain that BASCOM is a great way to get started as it is
entirely self contained, reasonably efficient and has lots of pre-built
hardware support libraries.

I do 95% or more of my work with avr-gcc.  I use BASCOM strictly for
teaching and getting newcomers started.  Having a completely useful compiler
for free doesn't hurt either.  

I can't imagine doing a large multi-file/task project in Basic, but there
are plenty of engineers out there that do.  If you have a large chip and
modest requirements you can bang out a tremendous amount of functionality
with little prior experience using BASCOM.  That is why there exist markets
for Basic Stamps, PICAXE and other PIC based "easy to use" processors.  It
is just that BASCOM is way cheaper and way faster than the heavily marketed
alternatives.

Cheers!

-----------
Larry Barello
www.barello.net


| -----Original Message-----
| From: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
| Of Thomas Keller
| Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 9:34 AM
| To: AVR-Chat@yahoogroups.com
| Subject: Re: [AVR-Chat] Re: (OT) PICAXE
| 
| On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 03:04 +0200, Ralph Hilton wrote:
| > On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:40:38 -0500 you wrote:
| > >On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 20:07 -0700, Larry Barello wrote:
| > >> Given that this is an AVR forum, not a PIC one, let me plug a
| > product
| > >> that I have found very useful:  BASCOM.  A free 4k limit compiler
| > is available and supports most AVR chips.
| > >  Only problem is I have never succeeded in getting anything to
| > >compile in BASCM-AVR.   Has some strange syntactical requirements for
| > >declaring variables, apparently.
| > I did contemplate Bascom when I started with AVRs. For me the quality,
| > friendliness and helpfulness of support was important. I joined a few
| > lists. I found the Bascom list unfriendly and somewhat dominated by
| > characters I found distasteful.
| 
|   AMEN to that!  The BASCOM-AVR channel appears, like so many of the IRC
| technical support chasnnles, to be primarily populated by teeneaged
| dopes who seem to think that anyone who doesn't unbderstand what THEY
| (think) they understand is a complete moron and a worthless individual.
| 
| >  In contrast the CVAVR list was friendly, helpful and supportive. The
| > ICCAVR list also seemed to be a helpful place. I haven't found Basic
| > to be a particularly versatile language and avoid it whenever
| > possible. As things stand I don't see an alternative to C/C++ . If
| > there were a decent and inexpensive Forth compiler available I would
| > probably have gone for that as I love screwing up my brain cells with
| > RPN and still use my antique and beloved HP11C and HP16C
| > calculators.
| 
|   *ACK* RPN!  I got more than enough experience with RPN when writing
| compilers.  It isn't natural.   *grin*  (RPN ::=  Rarely Natural
| Notation)
| 
|    Seriously, I am a fan of C (though not so much of C++, at least, not
| for embedded code).  I have to confess to a liking for assembler for
| embedded projects, but I suspect that is more because I enjoy bit
| twiddling and getting down and dirty with the hardware, than anything
| else.  *grin*
| 
| tom
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| Yahoo! Groups Links
| 
| 
| 
| 
|

Larry Barello wrote:

> Anyway, I still maintain that BASCOM is a great way to get started as 
> it is
> entirely self contained, reasonably efficient and has lots of pre-built
> hardware support libraries.

As you mention I think there are a range of alternatives. Which 
alternative you choose depends on what you are trying to do and how well 
the chosen architecture has been implemented. For example a buggy 
compiler and code library will not be used as it cannot be depended on 
and back to the original question, the quality of support and the user 
community may also have a bearing on which platform you choose. Below 
are 4 broad categories; the first two categories are good for beginners 
or prototyping and the last two categories are best for experts and 
production level applications.

1. (BASIC )Interpreters - Code is tokenized and downloaded to EEPROM 
memory for execution by an "interpreter-on-a-chip". Performance tends to 
be poor to very poor and has limited capabilities because of the 
requirement to implement the complete BASIC language on a chip. Easy to 
get started with. Although not AVR based the most common example is the 
Basic Stamp.

2. (BASIC) Compiler plus Virtual Machine - Code is compiled and 
optimized into an intermediate virtual machine language which is 
downloaded to EEPROM memory. The virtual machine language is usually 
quite functional and stack-based. The virtual machine executes the 
program but performance is poor to average. Easy to get started with. 
Example is BasicX.

3. (C, BASIC or Forth) Compiler - Code is compiled to AVR machine code 
and downloaded (programmed) to the flash memory. Performance is good. 
Function libraries can help with getting started but nevertheless this 
requires a certain degree of user sophistication. Examples are Bascom 
and AVR-GCC.

4. Assembler - Performance is very good albeit not always required. This 
is most difficult to get started with and requires a lot of programming 
skill and is the least productive compared to the other alternatives 
based on 3GLs. Most assembly language programmers end up building their 
own library of routines that they reuse across solutions.

>
> I do 95% or more of my work with avr-gcc.  I use BASCOM strictly for
> teaching and getting newcomers started.  Having a completely useful 
> compiler
> for free doesn't hurt either. 

I think you are partly right here.  Again for one-off prototyping and 
even for teaching you may find BasicX or similar better than Bascom. I 
have also seen BasicX used for short-run production applications 
(<1000). I can see a lot of merit in solutions such as the Bascom 
compiler although once the code has been compiled, you pretty lose any 
abstraction layer that you had with the Basic language.

> I can't imagine doing a large multi-file/task project in Basic, but there
> are plenty of engineers out there that do.  If you have a large chip and
> modest requirements you can bang out a tremendous amount of functionality
> with little prior experience using BASCOM.  That is why there exist 
> markets
> for Basic Stamps, PICAXE and other PIC based "easy to use" processors.  It
> is just that BASCOM is way cheaper and way faster than the heavily 
> marketed
> alternatives.

BasicX supports multi-file projects quite nicely including the ability 
to define module public and private functions, variables and constants. 
I'm not sure I quite agree with the statement on cost. If you examine 
the total cost of ownership, things even out a bit more. For example a 
AVR hardware programmer is needed if you intend to use Bascom or C. Off 
the shelf this is $29 from digikey although it is possible to build your 
own that is cheaper (see my website for an example). The Bascom compiler 
itself is also not free although some of the alternatives for C such as 
AVR-GCC are as you mention.

Mike
http://home.austin.rr.com/perks/basicx/ (not just BasicX projects)

On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 11:03 -0600, Dennis Clark wrote:
> >   I have gone through the manual, and done exactly what it says to
> do, and all I can get back freom the compiler is that perfectly normal
> > operations, such as, for example, "a = b^3" are illegal, or that my
> > variables, which are, indeed, declared, do not exist or are of
> incorrect
> > type.
>    You're doing embedded code now, not working on a PC.  Bascom
> supports pretty decent amounts of math, but b^3 is not something that
> I've used in an embedded processor.  Things that that for
> trancendentals or whatever tend to be interpolated from tables, not
> calculated in the limited abilities of little embedded processors. 

   That was an arbitrary example taken off the top of my head.
   
> >    I went to the BASCOM mailing list with these problems, and got
> > absoutely NOLTHING but verbal abuse from the denizens thereof.  I
> > downloaded some exampls of BASCOM code, and attempted to emulate
> what I found there, and had no success whatever.
>    Did you go there with an attitude on or "playing nice"?  I will 
> guarantee you that if you go to any on-line group with a chip on your 
> shoulder you'll get the boot.  Don't EVEN ask a newbie question on the
> guru Java lists!

   So, in a "support forum," newbies need not apply?  *NOT* what I call
"good support."

> >   I will grant that the PROBLEM is something I am doing incorrectly,
> but I also assert that the declaration requirements are **NOT** BASIC,
> nor even BASIC-like, and that the manuals are inadeqaute, and the
> suport non-existent.
> 
>    The manual is as good as Microchip's C18,

   I wouldn't know, I don't use PIC or MicroChip products.

>  and what manual do you get for GCC?

   I don't need a manual with GCC.   Is is standard C.  (besides which,
I have the source code.  If I *NEED* to know something, I can look it up
in the source code, and if I don't like the way it works, I have the
sources, I can fix it.  Yes, I am a huge fan of Open Source!)

>   I've found Mark to be very helpful with bugs.

   I have no idea what this means or to whom you are referring.

>    I think Bascom is a very good compiler for the money, and a very
> good educational tool for teaching embedded to those that are new to
> the concept.

   I can tell you that I am DEAD glad I didn't buy the product before
trying it.  Waste of mooneyk, in my opinion.  If it would actually
compile a simPLE BASIC program without issuing mysterious "error
mesaages that cannot be tracked down through the "manual," I might have
a different opinion.

   Finally, call me a judgemental jerk if you will, but in MY view
anyone who needs something like BASCOM to deal with embedded processors
has no business messing with embedded processors.  Use what you know,
and study and LEARN before you try to use something new, don't rely on
broken crutches.

Tom