EmbeddedRelated.com
Forums

will Parallax's Propeller IC be successful

Started by Unknown August 6, 2006
Over time most embedded design people reach familiarity with a
controller and mostly C language. And with time we do get better
performance and more functionality from the silicon suppliers. I work
mostly with the LPC (ARM7) family and I am happy with it.

I spend 3 hours reading a short article and looking at the tools of the
new Propeller Chip.
Parallax designed a simple 32 bit CPU and linked 8 units in one silicon
solution. They kept the approach simple and with a round robin type the
8 controller get severed sequentially.  Looking at the new language
SPIN they introduced (mix type of language I see object, pointers,
special instructions) and an assembly language.

I am not so sure what I should take of this approach. I don't see it
as an incremental improvement process here, but rather a complete new
embedded concept. I read that the SPI interface is missing and it is a
drawback, but I am sure this and other shortcomings will be soon
addressed.

What I am not clear is how a faster design task e.g. serving IO pins in
few hundred ns range would be implemented. Because, if the design often
can only be implemented in their assembler language I see this as a
real drawback. Also, because it is not C language all the legacy
software needs to be rewritten! Big issue.

The whole controller concept is proprietary to Parallax and no real
competition will be available. The IC is $25 single units and not much
below $20 in volume and you still have no analog capability. You do get
really good silicon for this kind of money on other embedded CPU
concepts.

I give Parallax a lot of credit for their work & design and I don't
intend to badmouth here.
It is just that I am currently not convinced that it is a long term
viable solution.  Although reading their MIPS it is impressive.
Will this concept fly or soon or later end in no where?
Thank you 
..richard

betterone11@gmail.com wrote:
> Over time most embedded design people reach familiarity with a > controller and mostly C language. And with time we do get better > performance and more functionality from the silicon suppliers. I work > mostly with the LPC (ARM7) family and I am happy with it. > > I spend 3 hours reading a short article and looking at the tools of the > new Propeller Chip. > Parallax designed a simple 32 bit CPU and linked 8 units in one silicon > solution. They kept the approach simple and with a round robin type the > 8 controller get severed sequentially. Looking at the new language > SPIN they introduced (mix type of language I see object, pointers, > special instructions) and an assembly language. > > I am not so sure what I should take of this approach. I don't see it > as an incremental improvement process here, but rather a complete new > embedded concept. I read that the SPI interface is missing and it is a > drawback, but I am sure this and other shortcomings will be soon > addressed. > > What I am not clear is how a faster design task e.g. serving IO pins in > few hundred ns range would be implemented. Because, if the design often > can only be implemented in their assembler language I see this as a > real drawback. Also, because it is not C language all the legacy > software needs to be rewritten! Big issue. > > The whole controller concept is proprietary to Parallax and no real > competition will be available. The IC is $25 single units and not much > below $20 in volume and you still have no analog capability. You do get > really good silicon for this kind of money on other embedded CPU > concepts. > > I give Parallax a lot of credit for their work & design and I don't > intend to badmouth here. > It is just that I am currently not convinced that it is a long term > viable solution. Although reading their MIPS it is impressive. > Will this concept fly or soon or later end in no where?
It's an interesting concept, but I can't really see it catching on. Their main market would appear to be hobbyists who want to play with something different. I might get a couple of the chips to play with, out of curiosity. I downloaded the development software a few days ago. It is rather crude, and is lacking simulation and debug facilities. Leon
betterone11@gmail.com wrote:
> Over time most embedded design people reach familiarity with a > controller and mostly C language. And with time we do get better > performance and more functionality from the silicon suppliers. I work > mostly with the LPC (ARM7) family and I am happy with it. > > I spend 3 hours reading a short article and looking at the tools of the > new Propeller Chip. > Parallax designed a simple 32 bit CPU and linked 8 units in one silicon > solution. They kept the approach simple and with a round robin type the > 8 controller get severed sequentially. Looking at the new language > SPIN they introduced (mix type of language I see object, pointers, > special instructions) and an assembly language. > > I am not so sure what I should take of this approach. I don't see it > as an incremental improvement process here, but rather a complete new > embedded concept. I read that the SPI interface is missing and it is a > drawback, but I am sure this and other shortcomings will be soon > addressed. > > What I am not clear is how a faster design task e.g. serving IO pins in > few hundred ns range would be implemented. Because, if the design often > can only be implemented in their assembler language I see this as a > real drawback. Also, because it is not C language all the legacy > software needs to be rewritten! Big issue. > > The whole controller concept is proprietary to Parallax and no real > competition will be available. The IC is $25 single units and not much > below $20 in volume and you still have no analog capability. You do get > really good silicon for this kind of money on other embedded CPU > concepts. > > I give Parallax a lot of credit for their work & design and I don't > intend to badmouth here. > It is just that I am currently not convinced that it is a long term > viable solution. Although reading their MIPS it is impressive. > Will this concept fly or soon or later end in no where?
It's an interesting concept, but I can't really see it catching on. Their main market would appear to be hobbyists who want to play with something different. I might get a couple of the chips to play with, out of curiosity. I downloaded the development software a few days ago. It is rather crude, and is lacking simulation and debug facilities. Leon
<betterone11@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
news:1154838135.068965.136800@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Over time most embedded design people reach familiarity with a > controller and mostly C language. And with time we do get better > performance and more functionality from the silicon suppliers. I work > mostly with the LPC (ARM7) family and I am happy with it. > > I spend 3 hours reading a short article and looking at the tools of the > new Propeller Chip. >
[]
> I give Parallax a lot of credit for their work & design and I don't > intend to badmouth here. > It is just that I am currently not convinced that it is a long term > viable solution. Although reading their MIPS it is impressive. > Will this concept fly or soon or later end in no where? > Thank you > ..richard >
Hi Richard, the Propeller is a dream. A dream of one man who made it real. He dreamed of this chip being made long time ago, at the times when Basic Stamp 2 was freshly introduced. Its success by concept as the goal was to make it in first place. Commercial success is another thing. Too much time is pasted since. Maybe. A propeller doesnt fly itself - there is more needed. Antti http://www.truedream.org
> Hi Richard, > > the Propeller is a dream. A dream of one man who made it real. > He dreamed of this chip being made long time ago, at the times > when Basic Stamp 2 was freshly introduced. Its success by > concept as the goal was to make it in first place. > Commercial success is another thing. > Too much time is pasted since. > Maybe. > A propeller doesnt fly itself - there is more needed. > > Antti > http://www.truedream.org >
Multithreaded cores is the way to the future. That has been my belief for 10 years+. -- Best Regards, Ulf Samuelsson This is intended to be my personal opinion which may, or may not be shared by my employer Atmel Nordic AB
<betterone11@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1154838135.068965.136800@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Over time most embedded design people reach familiarity with a > controller and mostly C language. And with time we do get better > performance and more functionality from the silicon suppliers. I work > mostly with the LPC (ARM7) family and I am happy with it. > > I spend 3 hours reading a short article and looking at the tools of the > new Propeller Chip. > Parallax designed a simple 32 bit CPU and linked 8 units in one silicon > solution. They kept the approach simple and with a round robin type the > 8 controller get severed sequentially. Looking at the new language > SPIN they introduced (mix type of language I see object, pointers, > special instructions) and an assembly language. > >
Shades of the Transputer?