Improve PBP with integrated configuration

[Kirk Fraser]

PBP is deficient in requiring config defines (and perhaps assembler code fragments) within the Basic program to get a PIC chip to even work at all. PBP should be expanded to provide complete coverage of the chip's functions so the programmer need only know BASIC as programmers using the Parallax Stamp do. At the very least PBP should provide a complete working base as good as the Stamp has, which more advanced programmers can chose to build in their directions of choice. Right now PBP doesn't work at all unless you add a set of configs and PBP Help key provides no help to create the set.

Then after you have a set of configs, PBP reports errors but still compiles anyway. Why is there no help to fix the errors? Maybe you should add expertese to PBP so it will work as well as Bill Gates' original Altair 8800 Basic instead of a kluge of barely compatible systems where secret code for the register settings is required for any program to actually work.

Oddly enough PBP claims to work with a LAN for updates but on my computer it shows no evidence of connecting to the internet either when the automatic or manual radio buttons are checked. Something needs to be done to update older copies of PBP to include support for the new PIC chips. Right now there are several .bas includes I've seen in sample code on this forum which are not available on my copy and unfortunately my vendor went out of business shortly after i bought in 2005.

Last but not least, since the help to do a set of configs on this forum is not consistent, promising help then simply referring the poster to the PIC data sheet (book) which is virtually unreadable to all but experts, it seems PBP should be upgraded to write the config section using a Wizard to ask questions and write based on the answers provided.

PS: Since newbies may require more help than this forum provides, there should be a sub-forum for recruiting consultants to provide answers that experts don't want to provide for free.

[cncmachineguy]

Kirk, the link provided in your request for defines does not go to the datasheet. It goes to a very well written post explaining the concept behind turning off the A/D function so the multiplexed pins may be used as digital.

I for 1 am sorry you are having such a time right out of the gate. Programmers writing for the stamp only have 1 choice of processor. Pretty easy to cater to the PIC so the programmer doesn't have to learn how it works.

PBP handles a multitude of devices. Not all of them work in the same way or even use the same registers.

[Kirk Fraser]

> Pretty easy to cater to the PIC so the programmer doesn't have to learn how it works.

Excellent typo - I think you meant Stamp, but your sentence describes succinctly what needs to be improved in PBP - make it so the programmer doesn't have to learn how the PIC works! Stamp Basic automatically decides based on the programmer's code whether to make a pin digital or analog so the programmer doesn't need to know how that is done. That's what a computer language compiler is for, so the programmer programs at a more abstract level than assembler.

PBP's design is a generation too old, from the days of Peek and Poke programming. If PBP has to cover different internal code for different PICs then the programmer should only have to name the processor such as "include 18F4550.bas" or use the drop-down menu to get PBP to generate the right code for that chip. Any need to resort to ASM should be pre-empted by the redesign of PBP, as should any need to set up a configuration, especially the code to get the chip to simply work. However, the PBP redesign should be done carefully to avoid the language complexity and code bloat that came in as Microsoft moved from GBasic to Visual Basic.

My qualifications for making suggestions to improve the PBP product include several years of working with a Stanford student to specify a new higher level computer language which he built in VBasic.

[mackrackit]

My qualifications for making suggestions to improve the PBP product include several years of working with a Stanford student to specify a new higher level computer language which he built in VBasic.

That is cool.
But when you are dealing with hardware things change. The Stamp gives you an "OS" of sorts, kind of like Windows when using VB.

Other than the underlying BASIC syntax between the Stamp, PBP, VB, etc, they are all different animals. You know that.

Even when using a Stamp, a person has to understand the hardware to do "advanced" projects. But it would be nice to be able to do like they do in Star Trek, "Computer, Make My Lunch" and it be done.

[Kirk Fraser]

The Stamp gives you an "OS" of sorts, kind of like Windows when using VB.

Now you get it! If the PIC hardware can't help, a PBP software emulator for PICs could allow code testing seperate from burn testing. (Today I burned through 3-4 PICs and only have 3 left.)

But it would be nice to be able to do like they do in Star Trek, "Computer, Make My Lunch" and it be done.

If I were better at defining a language, I'd be on my way. Now I have a language that is only at "chatterbot" level which I'll have to rewrite in C++ to improve things to drive a robot to make lunch.

[mackrackit]

Hey Bert, tell him about the sim you use...

If I were better at defining a language, I'd be on my way. Now I have a language that is only at "chatterbot" level which I'll have to rewrite in C++ to improve things to drive a robot to make lunch.

But think of the hardware involved

[rmteo]

You can follow the same topic here How do I learn configuration?