>
I haven't been following all of this, but it might be fairly easy to
buy a PIC Basic compiler that has support for many of the standard
peripherals as the oopic, and use regular PIC chips.
Also, if you already have a number of Stamp carrier boards on hand,
you might think about going to the Netmedia BX24, or else the
Coridium ARMExpress [very very fast], as dropin replacements for the
BS2.
> >> That is precisely what I am likely to do. OTOH, if I do I will
> >> probably switch to the Propeller.
> >
> > Your choice, of course. But I wouldn't take a class into a new
> > bleeding edge technology.
>
> Well, it is not bleeding edge. Some of the girls opted to build
a 'bot
> based on the Propeller. They actually found it as approachable as
the
> OOPic. They had to see a bit more of what is going on because they
had
> to load library routines to do what appear to be intrinsic to the
> language with the OOPic but they didn't have a problem with that.
>
> > Besides, I don't think it is pin compatible
> > with the existing controller board on the Mark III's.
>
> It isn't and that is the problem.
>
> > If you wanted
> > to do something with the Mark III you would have to design a new
> > board. No big deal but it takes time and effort.
>
> Yup.
>
> > There are probably only two chips sets that make any sense for
> > introductory courses: The Basic Stamp and the Basic Atom. Both
are
> > very well documented with the nod going to Parallax for their
support.
>
> Parallax has been *very* supportive of us here. When we had
problems
> with our Scribblers (motor failures) they replaced them all with
> BoeBots and then hacked code to make them work with the existing
> Scribbler GUI. (I *really* like the Scribbler GUI for kids just
> getting started.)
>
> OTOH, the kids had a lot of trouble with the details of low-level
> hardware control using the BS2. It was just too much too fast. The
> lost sight of the forest for the trees. The object abstraction of
the
> OOPic was a *much* better intermediate step. They could control
> devices as monolithic objects without having to delve deeply into
just
> exactly how it was working. That way they could focus on their own
> logic to accomplish the task.
>
> > I have a couple of Stamps but I haven't used them for anything.
It's
> > not a chip I am interested in.
>
> I have about 20 BS2s. It is not a chip I am particularly interested
in
> either. OTOH, when I need to do some really low-level controller,
it
> works fine. Two of the kids programmed one to be the controller for
a
> hidden transmitter for T-hunting. It was quite easy to make it key
the
> transmitter, send morse code, and then turn it off again, repeated
> over and over. When you start trying to do more than that it gets
too
> complicated as the chip gets in your way.
>
> Conversely, I *really* like the propeller. I can do a polling loop
in
> a separate core (cog in Parallax parlance) and make it generate an
> event by activating code in another cog. And everything runs nicely
in
> parallel. If only it had an A:D converter ...
>
> --
>
> Brian Lloyd Granite Bay Montessori
> brian AT gbmontessori DOT com 9330 Sierra College Blvd.
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) Roseville, CA 95661, USA
>
http://www.gbmontessori.com
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty
things . . .
> — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
>
> PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
> PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A
1B6C
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:oopic-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:oopic-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
oopic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
No comments:
Post a Comment