Accelerometer | ADC | ADXL | Adxl20 | AVR | BasicStamp | BX-35 | BX28 | BX35 | COM3 | Compiler | Downloader | EEPROM | Electromagnet | GetADC | GP2D1 | GPS | I2C | IDE | Keypad | LCD | LCD+ | MIDI | Motors | Multitasking | Netmedia | Networking | PCB | PID | PlaySound | PWM | Relays | RTC | Servo | ShiftOut | SitePlayer | SPI | Stack | Timer | USB

Yea Chris my sediments exactly Marv > ** Original Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > ** Original Sender: "Chris Parker" <> > ** Original Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 10:01:46 +1100 > ** Original Message follows... > From: "Chris Parker" <> > > Well everyone seems to want to have their say, well this is what I think. > I wouldn't have thought this list was the place to complain about the BX > system and it's programming environment. I am not here to listen to > complaints, just useful stuff. I say "complain somewhere else". > > I have no programming background, have not learnt anything about computers > at all in school. I taught myself everything I know so far, with the help of > groups like this. 2 years ago I tried to program some PIC chips in assembly > language. This is way beyond my understanding, so next I bought a kit with a > motorola HC? chip and lots of code in 'c'. Well I could make it do things, > but still couldn't understand the detailed addressing etc. Next came the BS2 > and now the BX24. Along they way I learnt a lot of VB writing a robotics > controller on my PC. > > The fact that BX is compatable with VB is a bonus for me as a novice. I > would have thought the whole idea of something like the BX was to make a > programmeable microcontroller useable by someone like me, a novice. > > If I had the programming background that it sounds like some of you people > have, I would be writing my own compilers, building my own microcontrollers, > and not harrassing Netmedia over a terrific product. > > Chris Parker > > >> From: "Frank Manning" <> > >>Subject: Re: VB Compatibility > >>> Dump the compatibility if sticking with it means we need > >>> to jump thru hoops to get our math to work right. > >> > >>OK -- what BASIC dialect should we be compatible with? > >> > >>Or should we come up with our own proprietary language that nobody else > >>uses? > >> > >>-- Frank Manning > >>-- NetMedia, Inc. > >> > > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > > >GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds. Get rates as low as 0.0 percent > >Intro APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW. > ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreativeCL ">Click Here</a> > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. Rates as low as 2.9 percent > Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards > Points, no hidden fees, and much more. Get NextCard today and get the > credit you deserve. Apply now. Get your NextCard Visa at > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative1CI ">Click Here</a> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >** --------- End Original Message ----------- **

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Seems to be to many rules and special cases to remember when using the BasicX math libraries. What's the big deal with needing to be VB compatible? >> dim x as long, y as long, z as long >> >> >> >> x=256*255 >> >> y=1 >> >> z=x+y x, y and z are declared long. The compiler should be able to understand this. Why should the progammer need to do the type casting (clng(256) stuff). This is HOAKY. I don't think VB has this problem but I must confess I have never tried this in VB. Dump the compatibility if sticking with it means we need to jump thru hoops to get our math to work right. Just my two cents. Vic _________________________________________ Victor Fraenckel Home of the WindReader Electronic Theodolite Read the WIND

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> From: "Victorf" <> > [...] > >> dim x as long, y as long, z as long > >> >> > >> >> x=256*255 > >> >> y=1 > >> >> z=x+y > > x, y and z are declared long. The compiler should be able to > understand this. Indeed. > Why should the progammer need to do the type casting (clng(256) > stuff). They shouldn't. > This is HOAKY. Truer words were never spoken. > I don't think VB has this problem but I must confess > I have never tried this in VB. Well, actually VB does have this problem, I'm sorry to say. > Dump the compatibility if sticking with it means we need > to jump thru hoops to get our math to work right. OK -- what BASIC dialect should we be compatible with? Or should we come up with our own proprietary language that nobody else uses? -- Frank Manning -- NetMedia, Inc.

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Frank Manning wrote: > OK -- what BASIC dialect should we be compatible with? > > Or should we come up with our own proprietary language that nobody else > uses? I don't think this is the point. It's fine to be a subset of VB, but I'm not sure you should replicate VB's bugs or inconsistencies, of which there are many. The notion of using (and compiling) BasicX code under VB is of limited value to me, unless you plan to provide some add-ons (emulator, debugger) that run under VB. But then this would be fairly limiting to your user base, who may prefer you just do all this from your own environment. -- Gordon

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Frank Manning wrote: > OK -- what BASIC dialect should we be compatible with? Perhaps it is better to have a language that works like it should. I, for one, would vote for that option. > Or should we come up with our own proprietary language that nobody else > uses? What is necessarily wrong with that? Do you seriously expect that BasicX code is going to be migtrated to other platforms. It's pretty well linked to the BX platforms now, isn't it? >I don't think this is the point. It's fine to be a subset of VB, but I'm not >sure you should replicate VB's bugs or inconsistencies, of which there are >many. My sentiments exactly. > The notion of using (and compiling) BasicX code under VB is of limited >value to me, unless you plan to provide some add-ons (emulator, debugger) >that run under VB. But then this would be fairly limiting to your user base, >who may prefer you just do all this from your own environment. We are using BasicX and the BX24 to control things not writing GUI's, Database packages and Web Browsers. Give us a dialect that can be relied upon to work in accordance with the language reference manuals. Everything should not have to be a workaround. Declaring types should have some meaning otherwise there is little or no sense in having a strongly typed language. Vic _________________________________________ Victor Fraenckel Home of the WindReader Electronic Theodolite Read the WIND

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I don't know what the BasicX user base is like but for my part I have no need of VB compatability. I have students using the BasicX in senior design projects. They work wholly within the BasicX development environment. In many of it's initial advertisments, Netmedia seemed to target the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more (much more) capability. Surely most of these folks don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be interesting to hear from other members of this list, For what types of applications do you use, or anticipate using, the BasicX? John Piccirillo > From: "Frank Manning" <> >Subject: Re: VB Compatibility >> Dump the compatibility if sticking with it means we need >> to jump thru hoops to get our math to work right. > >OK -- what BASIC dialect should we be compatible with? > >Or should we come up with our own proprietary language that nobody else >uses? > >-- Frank Manning >-- NetMedia, Inc.

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Before the VB holy war gets out of hand... We chose VB SYNTAX because it is the most successful programing language in history - bar none. There have been hundreds of thousands of VB compilers sold world wide. Bigger than any other single language compiler. VB is taught in high schools, junior colleges, and colleges throughout the world. I would hope, John, that your students would like to at least be familiar with this syntax for their future employment. VB is nicely structured and has plenty of goodies to keep people busy. Someday we will have cool interfaces with VB so that you can make PC interfaces to your controllers. If we can ever get done with the compiler and side issues... Now as far as VB's quirks, we need to make sure that BasicX is made for control applications. Where VB's execution diverges with "reality" then we (netmedia) need to lean to the side of control. So forums like this are a great tool for us to find the idiosyncracies in VB and our implementation and make it work for YOU!!! We love you guys! Keep telling us what you need. Jack -----Original Message----- From: John Piccirillo <> To: <> Date: Thursday, February 10, 2000 9:40 AM Subject: [BasicX] VB Compatibility >From: John Piccirillo <> > > I don't know what the BasicX user base is like but for my >part I have no need of VB compatability. I have students >using the BasicX in senior design projects. They work >wholly within the BasicX development environment. In >many of it's initial advertisments, Netmedia seemed to target >the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more >(much more) capability. Surely most of these folks >don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be >interesting to hear from other members of this list, > >For what types of applications do you use, or anticipate >using, the BasicX? > >John Piccirillo > >> From: "Frank Manning" <> >>Subject: Re: VB Compatibility >>> Dump the compatibility if sticking with it means we need >>> to jump thru hoops to get our math to work right. >> >>OK -- what BASIC dialect should we be compatible with? >> >>Or should we come up with our own proprietary language that nobody else >>uses? >> >>-- Frank Manning >>-- NetMedia, Inc. >> > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds. Get rates as low as 0.0 percent >Intro APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW. ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreativeCL ">Click Here</a> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I *really like* color editors, any language. I use VB 4.0 to do most editing (it's available). But it's too much trouble to get VB to try and compile specific embedded code application, unless I could also use the VB debugger in the process. I, for one, can't remember the exact syntax of one language, let alone the 4-5 I've worked in, so exact VB compatibility is not an issue for me. The BasicX environment doesn't seem to play well with Windoze on occasion, and seems to be a bit trivial compared to most development environments I've used (only one file window opened at a time, for example). I would not like to be forced to use only the BX environment for development. I would prefer a well thought out proprietary language and environment over some compatibility attempt that adds more problems and limitations on top of existing problems and limitations. Guess part of the question is what NetMedia is targeting, or anticipates targeting, the BX environment toward... Steve Stover -----Original Message----- From: John Piccirillo <> I don't know what the BasicX user base is like but for my part I have no need of VB compatability. I have students using the BasicX in senior design projects. They work wholly within the BasicX development environment. In many of it's initial advertisments, Netmedia seemed to target the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more (much more) capability. Surely most of these folks don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be interesting to hear from other members of this list, For what types of applications do you use, or anticipate using, the BasicX? John Piccirillo > From: "Frank Manning" <> >Subject: Re: VB Compatibility >> Dump the compatibility if sticking with it means we need >> to jump thru hoops to get our math to work right. > >OK -- what BASIC dialect should we be compatible with? > >Or should we come up with our own proprietary language that nobody else >uses?

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> From: "Victorf" <> > > Frank Manning wrote: > [...] >> I don't think this is the point. It's fine to be a subset of VB, >> but I'm not sure you should replicate VB's bugs or inconsistencies, >> of which there are many. >> [...] >> The notion of using (and compiling) BasicX code under VB is of >> limited value to me, unless you plan to provide some add-ons >> (emulator, debugger) that run under VB. But then this would be >> fairly limiting to your user base, who may prefer you just do all >> this from your own environment. Um, I didn't write this. Be careful with your attributions. -- Frank Manning -- NetMedia, Inc

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I like the *similarity* to VB (the sense that I don't have to learn yet another dialect) but I cannot imagine ever needing/wanting to develop a BX program in VB. The only plus I could ever see is some of the "pro" features of the higher-end VBs, like a code safe, handy for multiple developers working on a single product. But I believe this would be the exception and not the rule, and such developers would likely have something like this anyway. A BasicX program doesn't use any user interface or OLE features of VB, so one would pretty much just use VB for the editor, period. If VB doesn't accept certain commands that BasicX does, it doesn't hurt anything as long as the developer only uses the command set for BasicX. The inverse will be rare indeed: someone develops a script in BasicX environment (with specialty functions) then brings it over to VB. What would be the point? My sense is that VB was never designed to create embedded applications, so it lacks the features a developer of embedded apps would expect. I know I get tired of remembering to set all the registers, and use all the right masks, just to define a bit in a port. An embedded system should have functionality *tuned* for it. VB was never meant to be a portable language, so it shouldn't be treated as one. That said, the syntactical similiarity to VB is an important selling point, and I don't think NetMedia should lose that. -- Gordon At 10:39 AM 2/10/2000 -0600, you wrote: >From: John Piccirillo <> > > I don't know what the BasicX user base is like but for my >part I have no need of VB compatability. I have students >using the BasicX in senior design projects. They work >wholly within the BasicX development environment. In >many of it's initial advertisments, Netmedia seemed to target >the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more >(much more) capability. Surely most of these folks >don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be >interesting to hear from other members of this list, > >For what types of applications do you use, or anticipate >using, the BasicX?

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Sorry, but after 15 years of programming I've got to jump in here. Today seems to be my day for waxing poetic (or something)... :) -----Original Message----- From: "Jack Schoof" <> Before the VB holy war gets out of hand... We chose VB SYNTAX because it is the most successful programing language in history - bar none. There have been hundreds of thousands of VB compilers sold world wide. Bigger than any other single language compiler. Don't mention this to a C programmer unless you want to see blood shed... :) BTW I'm not a die-hard C programmer. Umm, sold to universities or to the serious programming firms? Does VB sales overwhelm C sales in "serious" program development, baring University teaching environments? Inquiring minds want to know. Just curious, no stake in any particular answer... VB is taught in high schools, junior colleges, and colleges throughout the world. I would hope, John, that your students would like to at least be familiar with this syntax for their future employment. I have run across very few companies that actually use VB for serious and involved programming, although it is a nice learning language. My introduction to programming (and computers) was assembly... :( VB is nicely structured and has plenty of goodies to keep people busy. Agreed! VB is a lot more straight forward than C from what I've seen, and easier to learn programming basics. Someday we will have cool interfaces with VB so that you can make PC interfaces to your controllers. If we can ever get done with the compiler and side issues... Now as far as VB's quirks, we need to make sure that BasicX is made for control applications. Where VB's execution diverges with "reality" then we (netmedia) need to lean to the side of control. On the other hand, VB has some serious limitations for embedded control and hardware control. I could never have used VB or BX for the embedded code on the 911 trunk firmware - the lack of bit operations and inline assembly would have made the project a nightmare in VB or BX. BX could be a very nice embedded language with some hardware and bit operation support. But a lot of embedded control would exceed the present BX speed and footprint. But I don't think you can expect much embedded use without such things as bit operations, and the ability to only load the parts of the op sys you need... <snip> Now I'd better close Outlook and get some "real" work done... :) Steve Stover

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

>Someday we will have cool interfaces with VB so that you can make PC >interfaces to your controllers. If we can ever get done with the compiler >and side issues... Of course you don't really need Visual Basic for this, just OLE (ActiveX, whatever it's called today). Right? -- Gordon

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> From: Gordon McComb <> > > I like the *similarity* to VB (the sense that I don't have to > learn yet another dialect) but I cannot imagine ever needing/ > wanting to develop a BX program in VB. Well, OK, but would you like to be able to port programs back and forth between BasicX and, say, OOPic? -- Frank Manning -- NetMedia, Inc.

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Fact is you can't unless you or he reverse-engineer each other's product. Any given program, especially for an embedded app, consists of relatively few core language constructs -- the Ifs, Whiles, etc. It's mostly dealing with object-specific properties, events, or statements, and these are unique to the architecure of the product (and the OOPic doesn't use an AVR chip). It's not just supporting given objects, but making the other guy's objects work exactly the same as yours, and vice versa. I would choose to use the OOPic in those cases where the functional design of that product made sense. I would choose to use the BasicX when the functional design of it makes sense. (And by extension, I'd choose to program a PIC16F84 with Assembler when it makes the most sense.) From a marketing standpoint, I would think you'd want compatibility with the market leader (in this case pin-for-pin with the BSII), but when you *become* the market leader you don't want it to be *too* easy for people to port over to something else. But that's just the entrepreneur in me talking. I'm not sure what you have in mind with the porting issues, and perhaps this might be worthwhile given specifics (e.g. how you might create a tokenized file from VB), but how the products are today I don't see much use for it. -- Gordon At 11:30 AM 2/10/2000 -0700, you wrote: >From: "Frank Manning" <> >> I like the *similarity* to VB (the sense that I don't have to >> learn yet another dialect) but I cannot imagine ever needing/ >> wanting to develop a BX program in VB. > >Well, OK, but would you like to be able to port programs back and forth >between BasicX and, say, OOPic?

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> From: Gordon McComb <> > >> From: "Frank Manning" <> >> [...] >> Well, OK, but would you like to be able to port programs back >> and forth between BasicX and, say, OOPic? > [...] > I'm not sure what you have in mind with the porting issues, and > perhaps this might be worthwhile given specifics [...] As an example, assume we have two classes Thermometer and Rangefinder, just to pick two classes that don't exist (to my knowledge) in any microcontroller in VB-compatible form. Wouldn't it be great if the following program could be ported with a minimum number of changes (such as pin numbers) between different microcontrollers? Dim Sonar As New Rangefinder ' Polaroid. Dim Temp As New Thermometer Const Gamma As Single = 1.4 Const R As Single = 286.9 ' N*m/(kg*K) Sub Main() Sonar.InitPin = 13 Sonar.EchoPin = 15 Sonar.SpeedOfSound = Sqr(Gamma * R * Temp.Value) Do Print Sonar.Range Call Delay(0.2) Loop End Sub BasicX is not capable of this now, but it would be relatively simple to add. The new block data classes already use this type of OO syntax, so that's not an issue. It is also trivial to write a VB program that does this now. -- Frank Manning -- NetMedia, Inc.

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Well, this is a whole different kettle of kats. I'm all for extending the language with objects. I didn't think this was the issue, though. I'd be very interested in class libraries that would reduce coding necessary to interface with common real-world hardware. Digital thermometers, the ADXL202, Polaroid Sonar, servos, steppers -- it would be a terrific boon, and would likely be a *significant* selling point. To keep this in context, however, I don't see how any of this requires VB or any need to compile BX code under VB. I *am* in favor of you handling objects in a VB syntactical fashion. Now, if you're planning on some fancy VB-centric emulator or something where you *must* be able to compile under VB, here's were something like conditional compilation can come in. I'm just very keen on seeing BX take full advantage of its hardware, even if it means breaking some syntactical rules with VB when doing dev work in the BasicX proprietary environment. I think it's also important to consider that a goodly portion of people learning VB within the last few years probably have learned it under loose data typing rules. They may not know what a variant is, but they use them all the time. Exposed to BasicX they'll be in a tizzy, because they won't understand why the compiler balks so much. I'm NOT suggesting loose data typing, but I am saying that being VB-like can be both a hindrance and a help. At some point you have to decide where to draw the line to avoid too many of its pitfalls. -- Gordon At 01:42 PM 2/10/2000 -0700, you wrote: >As an example, assume we have two classes Thermometer and Rangefinder, just >to pick two classes that don't exist (to my knowledge) in any >microcontroller in VB-compatible form. Wouldn't it be great if the following >program could be ported with a minimum number of changes (such as pin >numbers) between different microcontrollers? <snip

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Well everyone seems to want to have their say, well this is what I think. I wouldn't have thought this list was the place to complain about the BX system and it's programming environment. I am not here to listen to complaints, just useful stuff. I say "complain somewhere else". I have no programming background, have not learnt anything about computers at all in school. I taught myself everything I know so far, with the help of groups like this. 2 years ago I tried to program some PIC chips in assembly language. This is way beyond my understanding, so next I bought a kit with a motorola HC? chip and lots of code in 'c'. Well I could make it do things, but still couldn't understand the detailed addressing etc. Next came the BS2 and now the BX24. Along they way I learnt a lot of VB writing a robotics controller on my PC. The fact that BX is compatable with VB is a bonus for me as a novice. I would have thought the whole idea of something like the BX was to make a programmeable microcontroller useable by someone like me, a novice. If I had the programming background that it sounds like some of you people have, I would be writing my own compilers, building my own microcontrollers, and not harrassing Netmedia over a terrific product. Chris Parker >> From: "Frank Manning" <> >>Subject: Re: VB Compatibility >>> Dump the compatibility if sticking with it means we need >>> to jump thru hoops to get our math to work right. >> >>OK -- what BASIC dialect should we be compatible with? >> >>Or should we come up with our own proprietary language that nobody else >>uses? >> >>-- Frank Manning >>-- NetMedia, Inc. >> > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds. Get rates as low as 0.0 percent >Intro APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW. ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreativeCL ">Click Here</a> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> From: Gordon McComb <> > [...] > Now, if you're planning on some fancy VB-centric emulator or something > where you *must* be able to compile under VB, here's were something like > conditional compilation can come in. [...] If it were up to me, I couldn't imagine ever requiring an actual VB compiler, as in the kind manufactured by MS, if that's what you mean. Conditional compilation is another question, though -- there's no reason that couldn't be implemented in BasicX. We may look into it. I assume you mean something like this: #Const X = True [...] #If (X) Then Exit Sub #End If -- Frank Manning -- NetMedia, Inc.

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Count my vote for that. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Manning [mailto:] Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:31 PM To: Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility From: "Frank Manning" <> > From: Gordon McComb <> > [...] > Now, if you're planning on some fancy VB-centric emulator or something > where you *must* be able to compile under VB, here's were something like > conditional compilation can come in. [...] If it were up to me, I couldn't imagine ever requiring an actual VB compiler, as in the kind manufactured by MS, if that's what you mean. Conditional compilation is another question, though -- there's no reason that couldn't be implemented in BasicX. We may look into it. I assume you mean something like this: #Const X = True [...] #If (X) Then Exit Sub #End If -- Frank Manning -- NetMedia, Inc. --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. ZERO. Rates as low as 0.0 percent Intro APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points, no hidden fees, and much more. Get NextCard today and get the credit you deserve. Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative6CI ">Click Here</a> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

John, I could not say it any better, so I will use what you said. quote "In many of it's initial advertisements, Netmedia seemed to target the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more (much more) capability. Surely most of these folks don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be interesting to hear from other members of this list." end of quote. It appears to me that we are one big beta test group for Netmedia. I will have to wait until others provide a Stamp like instruction manual or examples thereof. In the mean time it is back to the stamp II for me. John Burton ----- Original Message ----- From: John Piccirillo <> To: <> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 11:39 AM Subject: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > From: John Piccirillo <> > > I don't know what the BasicX user base is like but for my > part I have no need of VB compatability. I have students > using the BasicX in senior design projects. They work > wholly within the BasicX development environment. In > many of it's initial advertisments, Netmedia seemed to target > the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more > (much more) capability. Surely most of these folks > don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be > interesting to hear from other members of this list, > > For what types of applications do you use, or anticipate > using, the BasicX? > > John Piccirillo > > > From: "Frank Manning" <> > >Subject: Re: VB Compatibility > >> Dump the compatibility if sticking with it means we need > >> to jump thru hoops to get our math to work right. > > > >OK -- what BASIC dialect should we be compatible with? > > > >Or should we come up with our own proprietary language that nobody else > >uses? > > > >-- Frank Manning > >-- NetMedia, Inc. > > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds. Get rates as low as 0.0 percent > Intro APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW. > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreativeCL ">Click Here</a> > > ---------------------------------------------------------- --------------

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> From: "John Burton" <> > > John, > I could not say it any better, so I will use what you said. > quote "In many of it's initial advertisements, Netmedia > seemed to target > the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more > (much more) capability. Surely most of these folks > don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be > interesting to hear from other members of this list." end of > quote. > It appears to me that we are one big beta test group for > Netmedia. Personally, I think its great that Netmedia works so closely with its users and listens to us for future enhancements. This builds a better product. It doesn't appear to be a beta product to me at all. They are a small company. After releasing the BX24, many different people are using it in ways Netmedia never had tried yet. When some issues were found, they replaced everyone's chip with a new one, for free. If they had waited to release it until they had found every little bug, it will still not be released, they just don't have the resources. > I will have to wait until others provide a Stamp like > instruction manual > or examples thereof. Why? I found it very easy to program the BX24. There is plenty of sample code out there and more than enough very helpful people (and netmedia) on this list to answer any questions. > In the mean time it is back to the > stamp II for me. Give up all the BX24's power, features, multitasking, etc just because of the docs? The docs are not near that bad, I think they are pretty decent. It sounds more like you don't have an application for the BX24 if the BS2 will do everything you need, otherwise I think you would take the time to work your way through learning the BX24. I did find programming the BX24 a little bit harder than the BS2, but that was because of all the extra features and programming in a multitasking environment, I had to think about the flow of my programs differently. Once I fully understood the multitasking, I will never go back to the BS2 or any other MCU's without it. > John Burton -C http://www.theonespot.com

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

John Burton: I am sorry that the BasicX will not work for you. Every product in the world can use more information. Parallax is lucky that they have nine years of documentation and support headaches behind them. We are not beta - that is for sure. We have had only one chip upgrade for minor technical issues in the BX24 and none that I remember on the BX01 which is 17 months old. Please send your system back (I assume it is in perfect working order) for a full and complete refund. This also goes for anyone else that is not satisfied with the product, no matter when you purchased it. We want happy customers - period! Thanks for giving us a try, Jack -----Original Message----- From: John Burton <> To: <> Date: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility >From: "John Burton" <> > >John, >I could not say it any better, so I will use what you said. >quote "In many of it's initial advertisements, Netmedia >seemed to target >the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more >(much more) capability. Surely most of these folks >don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be >interesting to hear from other members of this list." end of >quote. >It appears to me that we are one big beta test group for >Netmedia. >I will have to wait until others provide a Stamp like >instruction manual >or examples thereof. In the mean time it is back to the >stamp II for me. > >John Burton >----- Original Message ----- >From: John Piccirillo <> >To: <> >Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 11:39 AM >Subject: [BasicX] VB Compatibility >> From: John Piccirillo <> >> >> I don't know what the BasicX user base is like but for >my >> part I have no need of VB compatability. I have students >> using the BasicX in senior design projects. They work >> wholly within the BasicX development environment. In >> many of it's initial advertisments, Netmedia seemed to >target >> the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more >> (much more) capability. Surely most of these folks >> don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be >> interesting to hear from other members of this list, >> >> For what types of applications do you use, or anticipate >> using, the BasicX? >> >> John Piccirillo >> >> > From: "Frank Manning" <> >> >Subject: Re: VB Compatibility >> >> Dump the compatibility if sticking with it means we >need >> >> to jump thru hoops to get our math to work right. >> > >> >OK -- what BASIC dialect should we be compatible with? >> > >> >Or should we come up with our own proprietary language >that nobody else >> >uses? >> > >> >-- Frank Manning >> >-- NetMedia, Inc. >> > >> >> --------------------------- ONElist >Sponsor ---------------------------- >> >> GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds. Get rates as low as >0.0 percent >> Intro APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW. >> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreativeCL >">Click Here</a> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------- >-------------- >> >> > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. Rates as low as 2.9 percent >Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards >Points, no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the >credit you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative2CI ">Click Here</a> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I recently purchased my first BasicX. I was a bit reluctant because I really didn't want to learn another chip, but it sounded very kewl to have an inexpensive chip, 32K of memory, multi-tasking and a reasonable development environment (you know, all that stuff that a Stamp isn't). I'm now glad I jumped in. There isn't a huge installed base of software (yet) and there are some warts, but not many - and not as many as the Stamp has. I like the BasicX manual. It is good and it is getting better. The language is so much richer and elegant that the system is easily at the head of the class. IMHO NetMedia has created the next generation product. Please don't consider fundamental changes to your approach based on feedback from a few nay sayers. Dan Creagan CCS examples and hobby robots at http://192.195.23.217/robots/sigrobots.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Jack Schoof <> To: <> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > From: "Jack Schoof" <> > > John Burton: > > I am sorry that the BasicX will not work for you. > > Every product in the world can use more information. Parallax is lucky that > they have nine years of documentation and support headaches behind them. We > are not beta - that is for sure. We have had only one chip upgrade for > minor technical issues in the BX24 and none that I remember on the BX01 > which is 17 months old. > > Please send your system back (I assume it is in perfect working order) for a > full and complete refund. > > This also goes for anyone else that is not satisfied with the product, no > matter when you purchased it. > > We want happy customers - period! > > Thanks for giving us a try, > > Jack > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Burton <> > To: <> > Date: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:20 PM > Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > >From: "John Burton" <> > > > >John, > >I could not say it any better, so I will use what you said. > >quote "In many of it's initial advertisements, Netmedia > >seemed to target > >the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more > >(much more) capability. Surely most of these folks > >don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be > >interesting to hear from other members of this list." end of > >quote. > >It appears to me that we are one big beta test group for > >Netmedia. > >I will have to wait until others provide a Stamp like > >instruction manual > >or examples thereof. In the mean time it is back to the > >stamp II for me. > > > >John Burton > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: John Piccirillo <> > >To: <> > >Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 11:39 AM > >Subject: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > > > > > >> From: John Piccirillo <> > >> > >> I don't know what the BasicX user base is like but for > >my > >> part I have no need of VB compatability. I have students > >> using the BasicX in senior design projects. They work > >> wholly within the BasicX development environment. In > >> many of it's initial advertisments, Netmedia seemed to > >target > >> the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more > >> (much more) capability. Surely most of these folks > >> don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be > >> interesting to hear from other members of this list, > >> > >> For what types of applications do you use, or anticipate > >> using, the BasicX? > >> > >> John Piccirillo > >> > >> > From: "Frank Manning" <> > >> >Subject: Re: VB Compatibility > >> >> Dump the compatibility if sticking with it means we > >need > >> >> to jump thru hoops to get our math to work right. > >> > > >> >OK -- what BASIC dialect should we be compatible with? > >> > > >> >Or should we come up with our own proprietary language > >that nobody else > >> >uses? > >> > > >> >-- Frank Manning > >> >-- NetMedia, Inc. > >> > > >> > >> --------------------------- ONElist > >Sponsor ---------------------------- > >> > >> GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds. Get rates as low as > >0.0 percent > >> Intro APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW. > >> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreativeCL > >">Click Here</a> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >-------------- > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > > >Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. Rates as low as 2.9 percent > >Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards > >Points, no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the > >credit you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at > ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative2CI ">Click > Here</a> > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. ZERO. Rates as low as 0.0 > percent Intro APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points, no hidden > fees, and much more. Get NextCard today and get the credit you deserve. > Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative6CI ">Click Here</a> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

We wont do anything but listen and make our own judgements. We need the feedback, and we will filter it with our years of experience. Thanks for the input, and we will just keep on making it better. We have lots of new goodies cooking in the lab.... :) Jack -----Original Message----- From: Dan Creagan <> To: <> Date: Thursday, February 10, 2000 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility >From: "Dan Creagan" <> > >I recently purchased my first BasicX. I was a bit reluctant because I >really didn't want to learn another chip, but it sounded very kewl to have >an inexpensive chip, 32K of memory, multi-tasking and a reasonable >development environment (you know, all that stuff that a Stamp isn't). I'm >now glad I jumped in. There isn't a huge installed base of software (yet) >and there are some warts, but not many - and not as many as the Stamp has. > >I like the BasicX manual. It is good and it is getting better. The language >is so much richer and elegant that the system is easily at the head of the >class. IMHO NetMedia has created the next generation product. Please don't >consider fundamental changes to your approach based on feedback from a few >nay sayers. > >Dan Creagan

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Jack Thanks for your very generous offer. You have taken the bitch out of bitching, my respect for your company standing behind their product has increase many fold. I did not expect you do this, however I will probably take you up on your offer. Do I need a "RMA" number so we can keep track of this? John Burton ----- Original Message ----- From: Jack Schoof <> To: <> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > From: "Jack Schoof" <> > > John Burton: > > I am sorry that the BasicX will not work for you. > > Every product in the world can use more information. Parallax is lucky that > they have nine years of documentation and support headaches behind them. We > are not beta - that is for sure. We have had only one chip upgrade for > minor technical issues in the BX24 and none that I remember on the BX01 > which is 17 months old. > > Please send your system back (I assume it is in perfect working order) for a > full and complete refund. > > This also goes for anyone else that is not satisfied with the product, no > matter when you purchased it. > > We want happy customers - period! > > Thanks for giving us a try, > > Jack > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Burton <> > To: <> > Date: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:20 PM > Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > >From: "John Burton" <> > > > >John, > >I could not say it any better, so I will use what you said. > >quote "In many of it's initial advertisements, Netmedia > >seemed to target > >the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more > >(much more) capability. Surely most of these folks > >don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be > >interesting to hear from other members of this list." end of > >quote. > >It appears to me that we are one big beta test group for > >Netmedia. > >I will have to wait until others provide a Stamp like > >instruction manual > >or examples thereof. In the mean time it is back to the > >stamp II for me. > > > >John Burton

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Look, you can make the BasicX compatable with whatever you like. However, I will argue that it is AS IMPORTANT that the language work in a manner consistant with it's documentation and expectations. Since BasicX is a typed language then one should NOT have to jump thru hoops with typecasting to get a simple mathematical statement to work. [as previously discussed, this DID NOT WORK for the original poster] > dim x as long, y as long, z as long > > x=256*255 > y=1 > z=x+y the CLUDGE suggested using CLng(256) sort of stuff. Where are the compiler smarts? What's the reason for strong data typing? This sort of stuff should be cleaned up along with making the string handling more robust (more VB like). Sure, all this OO talk is great but at least start from a firm foundation when you go to build it. Of course you can always change the documentation to reflect these problems. I manufacture and sell a special purpose instrument worldwide and I am in the process of upgrading the system. For whatever reasons I was drawn to the BX24 as the core processor for my product.One of these reasons was it's stated floating point capabilities. I want to be sure that there are no hidden gotcha's that will bite me down the road when I have the instrumet deployed worldwide. I also need robust string handling. My act of faith is to assume that the BX24 will be around for the next 10 years and I expect NetMedia's act of faith be that it works as advertised and documented. As an aside, I would suggest that the most widely used language EVER was COBOL which may be waning nowdays but probabily still a strong contender for most used. FORTRAN had its hayday for the mathematical/scientific fields. You can still buy compilers for both of these languages for most computers. Vic _________________________________________ Victor Fraenckel Home of the WindReader Electronic Theodolite Read the WIND

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Frank, Would it be possible to spin off a version of the BX24 that deviated from VB compatibility and gave us bit handling and the other features an embedded controller should have. I am sure that would make a lot of your customers happy and you could ultimately let the market decide which direction the BX line should go. Maybe both. Marty Matthews (A happy customer) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I've printed out the BX manual and I've printed out the Stamp manual and I tend to like the BX manual better. Maybe all that is needed is to take the 'Getting Started' section out of the Hardware Reference and expand it into its own section. As far as Stamp people moving to the BX, new people to Stamps would have a harder time (IMHO) starting the BX series, but old heads should see the obvious advantages and take to it like a duck to water. On reflection, the previous sentence seems pretty obvious.... new people will generally have a steeper learning curve. Once you get the little devil started, the real treasure is the app notes. They helped me immensely. Dan Creagan CCS examples and hobby robots at http://192.195.23.217/robots/sigrobots.html ----- Original Message ----- From: Reginald Neale <> To: <> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 11:29 AM Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > From: Reginald Neale <> > > For a Stamp user who doesn't know any other programming environments, > BasicX is a huge culture shock. It comes with excellent reference > material but there is no one-step-at-a-time starter documentation > like the Stamp has. > > IMO the one thing NetMedia has neglected to emphasize for the newbie > is that if you are already familiar with Visual Basic it'll be > relatively easy to get up to speed. If you're not, you're under a big > handicap. > > I hope somebody is working on a BX24 for Dummies book. One of the > Stamp's biggest assets is its superb manual. > > Reg Neale > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds. Get rates as low as 0.0 percent > Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW. > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative5CI ">Click Here</a> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Just send it to my attention and I will make the arrangements. Jack -----Original Message----- From: John Burton <> To: <> Cc: Jack Wilker jr <> Date: Friday, February 11, 2000 4:34 AM Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility >From: "John Burton" <> > >Jack >Thanks for your very generous offer. You have taken the >bitch out of bitching, my respect for your company standing >behind their product has increase many fold. I did not >expect you do this, however I will probably take you up on >your offer. Do I need a "RMA" number so we can keep track >of this? >John Burton > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Jack Schoof <> >To: <> >Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 12:04 AM >Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility >> From: "Jack Schoof" <> >> >> John Burton: >> >> I am sorry that the BasicX will not work for you. >> >> Every product in the world can use more information. >Parallax is lucky that >> they have nine years of documentation and support >headaches behind them. We >> are not beta - that is for sure. We have had only one >chip upgrade for >> minor technical issues in the BX24 and none that I >remember on the BX01 >> which is 17 months old. >> >> Please send your system back (I assume it is in perfect >working order) for a >> full and complete refund. >> >> This also goes for anyone else that is not satisfied with >the product, no >> matter when you purchased it. >> >> We want happy customers - period! >> >> Thanks for giving us a try, >> >> Jack >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Burton <> >> To: <> >> Date: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:20 PM >> Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility >> >> >> >From: "John Burton" <> >> > >> >John, >> >I could not say it any better, so I will use what you >said. >> >quote "In many of it's initial advertisements, Netmedia >> >seemed to target >> >the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more >> >(much more) capability. Surely most of these folks >> >don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be >> >interesting to hear from other members of this list." end >of >> >quote. >> >It appears to me that we are one big beta test group for >> >Netmedia. >> >I will have to wait until others provide a Stamp like >> >instruction manual >> >or examples thereof. In the mean time it is back to the >> >stamp II for me. >> > >> >John Burton > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds. Get rates as low as 2.9 percent >Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW. ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative4CI ">Click Here</a> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Marty: In the new compiler and the V2.01 BX24 we have bit handling. We have made the equivalent of bit "arrays" which can be as big as 256 bits. See GetBit and PutBit. Const flag1 as byte = 0 Const flag2 as byte = 1 Dim eightflagsovertexas as byte Dim bigbits(1 to 20) as byte ... if getbit(eightflagsovertexas,flag1) = 1 then ... end if call putbit(eightflagsovertexas,flag2,1) ... 'or now with the new syntax putbit eightflagsovertexas, flag2 , 1 putbit bigbits, 100, 0 Jack -----Original Message----- From: Marty Matthews <> To: <> Date: Friday, February 11, 2000 7:21 AM Subject: [BasicX] Re: VB Compatibility >From: "Marty Matthews" <> > >Frank, > >Would it be possible to spin off a version of the BX24 that deviated from VB >compatibility and gave us bit handling and the other features an embedded >controller should have. I am sure that would make a lot of your customers >happy and you could ultimately let the market decide which direction the BX >line should go. Maybe both. > >Marty Matthews (A happy customer) >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

-----Original Message----- From: "Marty Matthews" <> Frank, Would it be possible to spin off a version of the BX24 that deviated from VB compatibility and gave us bit handling and the other features an embedded controller should have. I am sure that would make a lot of your customers happy and you could ultimately let the market decide which direction the BX line should go. Maybe both. <snip I would second, third, and fourth this motion. It would be very nice to have a more user friendly (as opposed to C) language that still allows specific hardware access when needed without contortions. The development environment also needs upgrading (color editor for starters). Plus I'd dearly like pointer access if desired - it makes some operations so much easier. I've learned enough languages, derivatives, and idiosynchracies that strict VB or Basic compatibility isn't an issue. Netmedia may need to choose specific target markets for this, however. Having just come from a VxWorks environment, I must say that the BasicX Multitasking environment is, well, juvenile for an embedded system, for people who are used to getting into the guts of programming and/or need "real time". And the Basic language is inherently cumbersome, to say the least, for hardware interaction. That's why I say a more intuitive language like Basic combined with easy hardware access and manipulation when needed would be very nice. But "embedded " and "real time" often go hand in hand, and there isn't enough information on the Op Sys to even begin to be deterministic, plus a relatively slow processor (presently). But the above thoughts may be waaaay outside Netmedia's present or intended target market. Basic programmers generally don't know (or want to know) about handling pointers, writing interrupts, register access, or stack operation. Maybe I'm just used to doing a lot more that I need to do... :) Just for grins, my (still) favorite language is/was Pascal (flame suit on). Good typecasting, but easy ways around types if desired. Reasonable compiler error messages. More intuitive syntax than C. Can use pointers if you wanted to, but didn't have to if you didn't understand them. Very nice compromise (I thought) between the "power" (and ambiguity) of C and the more intuitive but very restrictive Basic syntax. Never had the pleasure of Cobol or Ada, and Fortran has limited range. If anyone really wants to try something different, try Forth...:) Everyone have a good weekend! Steve Stover

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I think I would like to take you up on this also, Jack. When I purchased my system I also bought an extra BX01 chip and a component kit. Will you also accept these with my return? Kurt Stevens > -----Original Message----- > From: Jack Schoof [SMTP:] > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 10:16 AM > To: > Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > > From: "Jack Schoof" <> > > Just send it to my attention and I will make the arrangements. > > Jack > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Burton <> > To: <> > Cc: Jack Wilker jr <> > Date: Friday, February 11, 2000 4:34 AM > Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > >From: "John Burton" <> > > > >Jack > >Thanks for your very generous offer. You have taken the > >bitch out of bitching, my respect for your company standing > >behind their product has increase many fold. I did not > >expect you do this, however I will probably take you up on > >your offer. Do I need a "RMA" number so we can keep track > >of this? > >John Burton > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Jack Schoof <> > >To: <> > >Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 12:04 AM > >Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > > > > > >> From: "Jack Schoof" <> > >> > >> John Burton: > >> > >> I am sorry that the BasicX will not work for you. > >> > >> Every product in the world can use more information. > >Parallax is lucky that > >> they have nine years of documentation and support > >headaches behind them. We > >> are not beta - that is for sure. We have had only one > >chip upgrade for > >> minor technical issues in the BX24 and none that I > >remember on the BX01 > >> which is 17 months old. > >> > >> Please send your system back (I assume it is in perfect > >working order) for a > >> full and complete refund. > >> > >> This also goes for anyone else that is not satisfied with > >the product, no > >> matter when you purchased it. > >> > >> We want happy customers - period! > >> > >> Thanks for giving us a try, > >> > >> Jack > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: John Burton <> > >> To: <> > >> Date: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:20 PM > >> Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > >> > >> > >> >From: "John Burton" <> > >> > > >> >John, > >> >I could not say it any better, so I will use what you > >said. > >> >quote "In many of it's initial advertisements, Netmedia > >> >seemed to target > >> >the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more > >> >(much more) capability. Surely most of these folks > >> >don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be > >> >interesting to hear from other members of this list." end > >of > >> >quote. > >> >It appears to me that we are one big beta test group for > >> >Netmedia. > >> >I will have to wait until others provide a Stamp like > >> >instruction manual > >> >or examples thereof. In the mean time it is back to the > >> >stamp II for me. > >> > > >> >John Burton > > > > > > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > > >GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds. Get rates as low as 2.9 percent > >Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW. > ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative4CI ">Click > Here</a> > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. ZERO. Rates as low as 0 > percent Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers, > Rewards Points, no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and > get the credit you deserve. Apply now. Get your NextCard Visa at > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative3CI ">Click > Here</a> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Don't misunderstand me, I like the BasicX and have bought six chips so far and have recommended it to my class. My only point was to take a survey of this list's users to give Netmedia some feedback on the desireability of VB compatibility, given the recent discussions of VB peculiarities in math instructions. John- >John, >I could not say it any better, so I will use what you said. >quote "In many of it's initial advertisements, Netmedia >seemed to target >the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more >(much more) capability. Surely most of these folks >don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be >interesting to hear from other members of this list." end of >quote. >It appears to me that we are one big beta test group for >Netmedia. >I will have to wait until others provide a Stamp like >instruction manual >or examples thereof. In the mean time it is back to the >stamp II for me. > >John Burton

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Thanks for your support, and please understand that I don't disrespect your product. It is obviously the result of a lot of work and thought, and it is obviously a great tool for many people. Best of luck to you, Kurt Stevens > -----Original Message----- > From: Jack Schoof [SMTP:] > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 11:16 AM > To: > Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > > From: "Jack Schoof" <> > > Sure. > > Jack > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stevens, Kurt <> > To: ' <> > Date: Friday, February 11, 2000 8:39 AM > Subject: RE: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > >From: "Stevens, Kurt" <> > > > >I think I would like to take you up on this also, Jack. When I purchased > my > >system I also bought an extra BX01 chip and a component kit. Will you > also > >accept these with my return? > > > > Kurt Stevens > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jack Schoof [SMTP:] > >> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 10:16 AM > >> To: > >> Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > >> > >> From: "Jack Schoof" <> > >> > >> Just send it to my attention and I will make the arrangements. > >> > >> Jack > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: John Burton <> > >> To: <> > >> Cc: Jack Wilker jr <> > >> Date: Friday, February 11, 2000 4:34 AM > >> Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > >> > >> > >> >From: "John Burton" <> > >> > > >> >Jack > >> >Thanks for your very generous offer. You have taken the > >> >bitch out of bitching, my respect for your company standing > >> >behind their product has increase many fold. I did not > >> >expect you do this, however I will probably take you up on > >> >your offer. Do I need a "RMA" number so we can keep track > >> >of this? > >> >John Burton > >> > > >> >----- Original Message ----- > >> >From: Jack Schoof <> > >> >To: <> > >> >Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 12:04 AM > >> >Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > >> > > >> > > >> >> From: "Jack Schoof" <> > >> >> > >> >> John Burton: > >> >> > >> >> I am sorry that the BasicX will not work for you. > >> >> > >> >> Every product in the world can use more information. > >> >Parallax is lucky that > >> >> they have nine years of documentation and support > >> >headaches behind them. We > >> >> are not beta - that is for sure. We have had only one > >> >chip upgrade for > >> >> minor technical issues in the BX24 and none that I > >> >remember on the BX01 > >> >> which is 17 months old. > >> >> > >> >> Please send your system back (I assume it is in perfect > >> >working order) for a > >> >> full and complete refund. > >> >> > >> >> This also goes for anyone else that is not satisfied with > >> >the product, no > >> >> matter when you purchased it. > >> >> > >> >> We want happy customers - period! > >> >> > >> >> Thanks for giving us a try, > >> >> > >> >> Jack > >> >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: John Burton <> > >> >> To: <> > >> >> Date: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:20 PM > >> >> Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >From: "John Burton" <> > >> >> > > >> >> >John, > >> >> >I could not say it any better, so I will use what you > >> >said. > >> >> >quote "In many of it's initial advertisements, Netmedia > >> >> >seemed to target > >> >> >the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more > >> >> >(much more) capability. Surely most of these folks > >> >> >don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be > >> >> >interesting to hear from other members of this list." end > >> >of > >> >> >quote. > >> >> >It appears to me that we are one big beta test group for > >> >> >Netmedia. > >> >> >I will have to wait until others provide a Stamp like > >> >> >instruction manual > >> >> >or examples thereof. In the mean time it is back to the > >> >> >stamp II for me. > >> >> > > >> >> >John Burton > >> > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. Rates as low as 2.9 percent > Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards > Points, no hidden fees, and much more. Get NextCard today and get the > credit you deserve. Apply now. Get your NextCard Visa at > <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative1CI ">Click > Here</a> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> It would be very nice to >have a more user friendly (as opposed to C) language that still allows >specific hardware access when needed without contortions. The development >environment also needs upgrading (color editor for starters). Plus I'd >dearly like pointer access if desired - it makes some operations so much >easier. I've learned enough languages, derivatives, and idiosynchracies >that strict VB or Basic compatibility isn't an issue. V 1.45 has colored backgrounds and foreground. If you mean color coding the syntax, that is tougher. It also has a new tabbed interface where you can acccess any file in your project with one click. and lots more... >Netmedia may need to choose specific target markets for this, however. >Having just come from a VxWorks environment, I must say that the BasicX >Multitasking environment is, well, juvenile for an embedded system, for >people who are used to getting into the guts of programming and/or need >"real time". And the Basic language is inherently cumbersome, to say the >least, for hardware interaction. That's why I say a more intuitive language >like Basic combined with easy hardware access and manipulation when needed >would be very nice. But "embedded " and "real time" often go hand in hand, >and there isn't enough information on the Op Sys to even begin to be >deterministic, plus a relatively slow processor (presently). Not familiar with Vxworks. If you can suggest a better way to multitask a processor with 200 bytes of ram or 400 bytes of ram I am all ears. You can call a subroutine or calltask it, I dont know how much easier it gets than that. In fact you can do both at the same time. Yes you have to help make a stack for the compiler. I wish we had 64K or more in the processor and we could hide that, but we dont. Lots of these issues become moot if you use the BX01 with the RAM. Yes you need more hardware for I/O but it is not that much if you use SPI. The processor was intended as a control system. Real time is in the eye of the beholder. This device is perfect for most process control applications. It depends on your loop time. For graphics, and high speed things maybe not. Lots of people use us as the human interface behind a fast processor. As you know the human interface usually takes 80% of the time in a project. We give you the ability to talk to the devices registers directly and play with devices like the timer1 and some internals without messing up the operating system. Is our register.xxx format too cumbersome? Is putpin(12,1) too cumbersome? I want to understand what is cumbersome about the hardware interaction that you speak. Yes SPI is a bit difficult, but show me something in C that does it better and flexible with channels like we have. We want to be flexible but I need to know what you dislike and how you suggest change. Otherwise it is just a complaint that can go no where. >But the above thoughts may be waaaay outside Netmedia's present or intended >target market. Basic programmers generally don't know (or want to know) >about handling pointers, writing interrupts, register access, or stack >operation. Maybe I'm just used to doing a lot more that I need to do... >:) >Just for grins, my (still) favorite language is/was Pascal (flame suit on). >Good typecasting, but easy ways around types if desired. Reasonable >compiler error messages. More intuitive syntax than C. Can use pointers if >you wanted to, but didn't have to if you didn't understand them. Very nice >compromise (I thought) between the "power" (and ambiguity) of C and the more >intuitive but very restrictive Basic syntax. Never had the pleasure of >Cobol or Ada, and Fortran has limited range. If anyone really wants to try >something different, try Forth...:) Pascal is my favorite too. Although assembly is where I live. >Everyone have a good weekend! > >Steve Stover

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Sure. Jack -----Original Message----- From: Stevens, Kurt <> To: ' <> Date: Friday, February 11, 2000 8:39 AM Subject: RE: [BasicX] VB Compatibility >From: "Stevens, Kurt" <> > >I think I would like to take you up on this also, Jack. When I purchased my >system I also bought an extra BX01 chip and a component kit. Will you also >accept these with my return? > > Kurt Stevens > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jack Schoof [SMTP:] >> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 10:16 AM >> To: >> Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility >> >> From: "Jack Schoof" <> >> >> Just send it to my attention and I will make the arrangements. >> >> Jack >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Burton <> >> To: <> >> Cc: Jack Wilker jr <> >> Date: Friday, February 11, 2000 4:34 AM >> Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility >> >> >> >From: "John Burton" <> >> > >> >Jack >> >Thanks for your very generous offer. You have taken the >> >bitch out of bitching, my respect for your company standing >> >behind their product has increase many fold. I did not >> >expect you do this, however I will probably take you up on >> >your offer. Do I need a "RMA" number so we can keep track >> >of this? >> >John Burton >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: Jack Schoof <> >> >To: <> >> >Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 12:04 AM >> >Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility >> > >> > >> >> From: "Jack Schoof" <> >> >> >> >> John Burton: >> >> >> >> I am sorry that the BasicX will not work for you. >> >> >> >> Every product in the world can use more information. >> >Parallax is lucky that >> >> they have nine years of documentation and support >> >headaches behind them. We >> >> are not beta - that is for sure. We have had only one >> >chip upgrade for >> >> minor technical issues in the BX24 and none that I >> >remember on the BX01 >> >> which is 17 months old. >> >> >> >> Please send your system back (I assume it is in perfect >> >working order) for a >> >> full and complete refund. >> >> >> >> This also goes for anyone else that is not satisfied with >> >the product, no >> >> matter when you purchased it. >> >> >> >> We want happy customers - period! >> >> >> >> Thanks for giving us a try, >> >> >> >> Jack >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: John Burton <> >> >> To: <> >> >> Date: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:20 PM >> >> Subject: Re: [BasicX] VB Compatibility >> >> >> >> >> >> >From: "John Burton" <> >> >> > >> >> >John, >> >> >I could not say it any better, so I will use what you >> >said. >> >> >quote "In many of it's initial advertisements, Netmedia >> >> >seemed to target >> >> >the BasicX for Basic Stamp users who wanted more >> >> >(much more) capability. Surely most of these folks >> >> >don't give a hoot about VB compatibility. It would be >> >> >interesting to hear from other members of this list." end >> >of >> >> >quote. >> >> >It appears to me that we are one big beta test group for >> >> >Netmedia. >> >> >I will have to wait until others provide a Stamp like >> >> >instruction manual >> >> >or examples thereof. In the mean time it is back to the >> >> >stamp II for me. >> >> > >> >> >John Burton >>

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

For a Stamp user who doesn't know any other programming environments, BasicX is a huge culture shock. It comes with excellent reference material but there is no one-step-at-a-time starter documentation like the Stamp has. IMO the one thing NetMedia has neglected to emphasize for the newbie is that if you are already familiar with Visual Basic it'll be relatively easy to get up to speed. If you're not, you're under a big handicap. I hope somebody is working on a BX24 for Dummies book. One of the Stamp's biggest assets is its superb manual. Reg Neale

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

> From: "Victorf" <> > > [...] > [as previously discussed, this DID NOT WORK for the original poster] > > dim x as long, y as long, z as long > > > > x=256*255 > > y=1 > > z=x+y > > the CLUDGE suggested using CLng(256) sort of stuff. [...] Yes, I agree. The plan is to take care of this in the next compiler release, one way or another. This problem obviously conflicts with strong typing requirements. -- Frank Manning -- NetMedia, Inc.

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

I do wonder what people would say if the Basic was changed and not compatible with VB. You would have people complaining that it doesn't work that way in VB. Standards are important, even if they are a moving target. Newton

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )

Why not say it over and over and over and over again. Boring. -----Original Message----- From: Victorf <> To: BasicX Maillist <> Date: Friday, 11 February 2000 11:17 Subject: [BasicX] Re: VB Compatibility >From: "Victorf" <> > >Look, you can make the BasicX compatable with whatever you like. However, I >will argue that it is AS IMPORTANT that the language work in a manner >consistant with it's documentation and expectations. Since BasicX is a typed >language then one should NOT have to jump thru hoops with typecasting to get >a simple mathematical statement to work. > > [as previously discussed, this DID NOT WORK for the original poster] > > dim x as long, y as long, z as long > > > > x=256*255 > > y=1 > > z=x+y > >the CLUDGE suggested using CLng(256) sort of stuff. Where are the compiler >smarts? What's the reason for strong data typing? This sort of stuff should >be cleaned up along with making the string handling more robust (more VB >like). Sure, all this OO talk is great but at least start from a firm >foundation when you go to build it. Of course you can always change the >documentation to reflect these problems. > >I manufacture and sell a special purpose instrument worldwide and I am in >the process of upgrading the system. For whatever reasons I was drawn to the >BX24 as the core processor for my product.One of these reasons was it's >stated floating point capabilities. I want to be sure that there are no >hidden gotcha's that will bite me down the road when I have the instrumet >deployed worldwide. I also need robust string handling. My act of faith is >to assume that the BX24 will be around for the next 10 years and I expect >NetMedia's act of faith be that it works as advertised and documented. > >As an aside, I would suggest that the most widely used language EVER was >COBOL which may be waning nowdays but probabily still a strong contender for >most used. FORTRAN had its hayday for the mathematical/scientific fields. >You can still buy compilers for both of these languages for most computers. > >Vic >_________________________________________ > >Victor Fraenckel >Home of the WindReader Electronic Theodolite > Read the WIND > > >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > >GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds. Get rates as low as 0.0 percent >Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW. ><a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative5CI ">Click Here</a> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------

(You need to be a member of basicx -- send a blank email to basicx-subscribe@yahoogroups.com )