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
will Parallax's Propeller IC be successful
Started by ●August 6, 2006
Reply by ●August 6, 20062006-08-06
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
Reply by ●August 6, 20062006-08-06
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
Reply by ●August 6, 20062006-08-06
<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
Reply by ●August 6, 20062006-08-06
> 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
Reply by ●August 7, 20062006-08-07
<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?