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

Hi Dan I often use the F4 key if I'm working on the laptop and odn't have a processor hooked up. Because we don't have clever debugging tools, the method I use often is to use various debug.print commands to see what's in various variables at different places in the code, then no-op them out later. The basic stamp has better screen debug options than the bx24, and so you can only view so many variables at a toime bnefore they become difficult to track and read, so often I need to do a new F5 to change the screen view only. A damn nuisance. The red and green LEDs I also put to great use in debugging code. Was ths sub or peice of code actuially scanned? Pulseout(26,1.0E-1,1) soon checks that out. What I'm referring to mainly is debugging code on the actual target system, when hardware has almost as much to do with the final project as the software. LCD formatting springs to mind. neil Dan Bielecki wrote: > Neil, > An alternative is to just use the F4 key and compile...dont > download. Now > I realize that logic may compile just fine and STILL not be functional > at > run time....but at least F4 cuts down on the eeprom writes when using > the > change 1 line compile, oops...change 1 line, compile...oops principal > (your > really do that???? Tisk..tisk) > > I've thought about this off and on the last couple of days.....There > really > isn't any way around it at the moment because of the nature of the > download > into the BX. Because of that...Im think'n I might work on cleaning > up that > virtual BX processor I wrote in VB awhile back. If I get it to a > point > where its not so hard coded for my own functions and OS...kinda make > it more > generic in nature ...maybe I'll post it for everyone....maybe...(after > all > it does give me an edge on things at this point)... > I'll think about it. > > Or better yet...have one written by NetMedia proper...one that can > read the > compiled object at the PC level (mine doesn't, its a BAS module like > Tony's) > and execute the code.....Now they may not ever do it since it will cut > down > on chips that are sold....cuz.....why buy physical chips if everything > you > can do with one can be done at the PC level....but it would greatly > assist > in debugging. IBM did almost the same thing in designing later > versions of > their System/36 SSP operating system. They completely incorporated it > > virtually within a "secret" machine for years...the secret machine > later > became their AS400 system and when finally marketed...can run S/36 > code > flawlessly within its S36E environment without changes to logic. > > Only the finished bxCode would actually be needed to be downloaded > into a > physical BX then. To me that would be very cool...I could work on > bxCode > on an airplane using my ThinkPad and run it without lugging around > cables > and a dev board and chip....and having airport security give ya funny > looks > as you pass all the stuff thru X-Ray....man! they dont like > that....afraid > your going to assemble "the bomb" in flight. But hey...what else is > there > to do for hours on end when your sitting in a steel tube that weighs > mega-tons...Steel was never really intended to fly....Coding keeps me > from > leaning over to the person next to me and whispering "Hey, Ya know > what?...We're all gonna wish we on the ground if these red and green > LEDs > stop flash'n...." > Oh the fun I've had with my BX !!! > > .db. > -----Original Message----- > From: Neil Jepsen [mailto:] > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 12:49 PM > To: > Subject: Re: [BasicX] Re: More Beta software comments > No offence taken Dan. I was simply trying to promote some discussion ( > > which I have!). What I was saying is essence, is that because of the > lack of good debugging tools, and the ease of the compile/run process, > > its too easy to put test data etc out to the screen or an LCD ( which > I > generally have on the system) to help in debugging. For the last 20 > yrs, > my programming has been mainly with PLCs, and there you can also run > code within a few seconds of a change, so one learns bad (?) habits. > > Dan Bielecki wrote: > > > Neil, > > I wasn't pointing accusing fingers at anyone in particular. > > I was speaking in general terms on the subject of compile time. > > I've examined some of the stuff you've personally posted. > > I can read your code. > > > > I would say that only YOU would know if your a bad programmer based > on > > the > > personal opinion of single person speaking in general terms. > > > > If so? ..... Well, we're gonna need a lot of forum space.... :) > > > > .db. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Neil Jepsen [mailto:] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 9:08 PM > > To: > > Subject: Re: [BasicX] Re: More Beta software comments > > > > > > That would be nice, but how do you debug, ( given we don't have > > comprehensive debugging tools), without compiling and recompliling > > multiple debug.print statements etc. I would compile a prog a > hundred > > or > > more times durimng the degbug process, simply in shifting test lines > > > around. I find the "Watch" facility hopeless, and never use it. I > am > > partly guilty of your accusation, so am I a bad programmer? > > neil > > > > > > Dan Bielecki wrote: > > > > > To All, Here's my piece on the compiler subject. > > > > > > Its just that, a compiler. Development tools, such as compilers, > > > > real > > > focus should be on the area of optimization of the resulting > object. > > > > > Personally, I dont really care if the project takes .0001 seconds > or > > 1 > > > hour > > > to compile as long as the resulting object is as efficient as > > possible > > > at > > > run time. The compile is the translation of source to object > code. > > > Translations by nature are slow as each line is syntaxed and > > resolved, > > > and > > > in some cases multiple times per line. If the resulting piece of > > > object > > > code is as squeaky-clean as possible and runs in the smallest > space > > as > > > > > > possible and uses the least amount resources....now that to me is > > > worth the > > > trade-off of a seemingly lengthy compile. > > > > > > Besides....after a few hours of working on something....a break > > during > > > > > > compile is good for the programming soul, your eyes, mind and > > > muscles. Grab > > > a soda or beer or something...you come back slightly refreshed. A > > > > five > > > minute break for every one hour of coding is the recommended > > timeframe > > > by > > > ergonomics to keep the mind as alert as possible to the matter at > > > hand. > > > Five minutes is more then enough time to compile a project. > > > > > > One of the first mistakes made in development is fix a > > > line...compile....fix > > > a line...compile...etc....this is not an inefficient > > compiler...thats > > > inefficient development and use of a compiler. And on a BX > > platform > > > I > > > think that could be taxing on the eeproms since they have to be > > > rewritten > > > over and over with the object code. > > > > > > I've always believed in quality, function and performance over > > > development > > > time. Compiles are development tools and fall in that category. > > One > > > more > > > note.........you only really compile ONCE...for the finished > > product. > > > All > > > the other time spent is inefficient development, since you > > > inefficiently > > > wrote the logic and spent development time debugging it. So a > > > lengthy > > > compile...ONCE.... is acceptable. If your development time is too > > > > long......perhaps you might want to examine the practices and look > > > for > > > > > > improvements in that area. > > > > > > Okay...I've said my piece. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [mailto:] > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 2:36 PM > > > To: > > > Subject: [BasicX] Re: More Beta software comments > > > > > > > > > --- In basicx@y..., dlc@v... wrote: > > > > Tony, all, > > > > > > > > Does this really matter? BasicX uses VBish syntax but is NOT > > VB. > > > The > > > > compiler is in VB and what we put into it doesn't change how it > > runs > > > > > > because > > > > someone else did that code. The VB based BX compiler is > > constantly > > > changing > > > > strings and string lengths as it runs, that's why its so dog > slow. > > > > > > > > Exactly, it also likes to convert from ASCII to Unicode and back > all > > > > > the time. I've never even used VB since VB4.0. I own it but never > > > bothered to install it for the last 3 or 4 years. I'm coding in > > > PowerBasic, which compiles a 50.000 lines project, consisting of > > > dozens of files, to a 2 Mb stand alone EXE in under 5 seconds. On > a > > > 533 MHz Pentium ... > > > > > > That's the compilation speed I'm used to. So I'm not complaining, > > just > > > > > > trying to let the writers know that there are other, faster ways. > In > > > > > the hope that they get interested. > > > > > > Please note that PB is not a VB clone. PB will let you do anything > C > > > > > can do, meaning you can also mess up things real bad in the blink > of > > > > > an eye. As compared to "eventually" in VB. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Peter Manders > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > > > > > Start here... > > > > > > Height: > > > 345678 ft 01234567891011in > > > > > > Weight: > > > lbs. kg. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > > > > > Start here... > > > > Height: > > 345678ft 01234567891011in > > > > > > Weight: > > lbs.kg. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service. > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > ADVERTISEMENT > > > > Start here... > > > > Height: > > 345678 ft 01234567891011in > > > > Weight: > > lbs. kg. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > You can, too! Start > here... > > Height: > 345678ft 01234567891011in > Weight: > lbs.kg. > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > > You can, too! Start here... > > Height: > 345678 ft 01234567891011in > > Weight: > lbs. kg. > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Start here... Height: 345678ft 01234567891011in Weight: lbs.kg. > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

Are there any plans to increase the maxium baud rate for Com3 ? .db. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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