<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? 

> 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> 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

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

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