> All I know is its a lot easier for those of us not
so accomplished.
> With lots of memory (2K in Basic and 1K in Ladder) you can easily set
> input and output queues for both RS232 ports at 100 bytes each and
> still have 1600 left. What the basicx needs is more RAM !!! The ladder
> logic is wonderful for handling multiple interupts or near interupts
> (10ms ladder scan) which makes multiple event handling much easier. I
> have never used ladder logic before now but used in the right
> situation it simplies programming a lot. The basic side then can
> communicate with the ladder side and the ladder side can initiate an
> interupt in the basic side. The basic side can do the complicated
> calculations and let the ladder side control. The price for the CB220
> is $34 vs $50 for the basicx. I am using the CB280( like the bx35 you
> need to supply 5V) which gives me 49 IO ports for $43.
> I really think Basicx is falling behind and you hear very little about
> what developments they are working on (if they are ... )
I agree that NetMedia is falling behind with BasicX. That is why you
will hear about ZBasic (http://www.zbasic.net/) on this forum because it
represents what BasicX could have grown into had NetMedia continued
investment. ZBasic is produced by Elba Corporation (aka Don Kinzer) who
as you know is very well known on this group. ZBasic supports 1K of User
Ram and up to 600 bytes for strings - this is more than double the
capacity of BasicX. ZBasic is based on the ATmega32 hardware.
You may also want to investigate using the bxDism utility which does a
static analysis for your code to determine unused variables and
calculates the estimated stack space used by each task. You can download
bxDism from http://home.austin.rr.com/perks/micros/bxDism/.
Just to clarify I do not work for either NetMedia or Elba Corporation.
BTW there are other ways to get more ports that have discussed before
such as the PCF8574 (8) or MCP23016 (16) for less than $1.50.
All I know is its a lot easier for those of us not so accomplished.
With lots of memory (2K in Basic and 1K in Ladder) you can easily set
input and output queues for both RS232 ports at 100 bytes each and
still have 1600 left. What the basicx needs is more RAM !!! The ladder
logic is wonderful for handling multiple interupts or near interupts
(10ms ladder scan) which makes multiple event handling much easier. I
have never used ladder logic before now but used in the right
situation it simplies programming a lot. The basic side then can
communicate with the ladder side and the ladder side can initiate an
interupt in the basic side. The basic side can do the complicated
calculations and let the ladder side control. The price for the CB220
is $34 vs $50 for the basicx. I am using the CB280( like the bx35 you
need to supply 5V) which gives me 49 IO ports for $43.
I really think Basicx is falling behind and you hear very little about
what developments they are working on (if they are ... )
Reply by Don Kinzer●January 7, 20062006-01-07
--- In basicx@basi..., Mike Perks <basicx@a...> wrote: > BasicX also has a hardware USART as well so
I'm not sure why this is
> more reliable than Cubloc.
The Cubloc has two hardware USARTs. While being implemented in
hardware offers some advantages, it also is more limiting in that the
Rx and Tx lines are fixed: channel 1 sends on pin 16 and receives on
pin 15.
Don
Reply by Mike Perks●January 7, 20062006-01-07
church_art wrote:
> http://cubloc.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t4
>
> This is an interesting post on the cubloc user group which puts the
> speed of the cubloc & BX24P at about the same. The Cubloc however
has
> some very powerful and friendly features. It also lacks a couple of
> features that the BX24 has so you have to determine what you need. The
> RS232 communication with the cubloc is by far easier and more reliable
> though due to its hardware uart and lots of memory.
Cubloc really addresses a different audience with the inclusion of
ladder logic for PLC programmers. The system library function is not as
complete as that for BasicX.
The processor is an Atmel ATmega128 running at 18.4320 MHz whereas the
BasicX is a '8535 running at 7.3727 MHz. So really their claim of being
5% faster really shows that there implementation is not as good as
BasicX. For comparison purposes the ZX-24 is 2x faster than the BX-24p
(for this scenario) mostly because its clock is running at 14.7454 MHz.
BasicX also has a hardware USART as well so I'm not sure why this is
more reliable than Cubloc.
--- In basicx@basi..., "church_art" <achurch@m...> wrote: > The RS232 communication with the cubloc is by far
easier and more
> reliable though due to its hardware uart and lots of memory.
It is easier in the sense that you have fewer choices.
When you open a com port, it automatically creates the queues for you
so that part is easier. However, your are much more restricted in how
you add data to the queue and get data out of the queue.
You're also stuck with the archaic PBasic syntax (circa 1970) although
they at least added parameterized subroutines/functions and some other
improvements. It is not clear whether parameters to
subroutines/functions are "ByVal" only or "ByRef" only. Not
having a
choice is quite limiting. Although I can't tell for sure, I suspect
that the String data type is limited in that you can't pass a string
to a procedure nor return one from a function. The same might also be
true for real numbers. Again, it is not clear since the documentation
is incomplete, not particularly well written and poorly organized.
Don
Reply by church_art●January 6, 20062006-01-06
http://cubloc.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t4
This is an interesting post on the cubloc user group which puts the
speed of the cubloc & BX24P at about the same. The Cubloc however has
some very powerful and friendly features. It also lacks a couple of
features that the BX24 has so you have to determine what you need. The
RS232 communication with the cubloc is by far easier and more reliable
though due to its hardware uart and lots of memory.