--- In m..., Joerg wrote:
>
> Peter Johansson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
> >
> >> I like this maker movement because it gets kids interested in something
> >> real instead of drugs.
> >
> > Also, television and video games...
> > The real problem are parents that buy them just about anything. No
> incentive to build and repair.
> >> There is only one problem: Makers are essentially
> >> systems guys. Many lose or never even acquire any serious know-how about
> >> component level design. They can plug together modules but cannot design
> >> the modules.
> >
> > I agree entirely. It is an interesting problem, one I have thought
> > about a fair bit.
> >
> > What is lacking are the educational materials that bootstrap learning
> > from first principles, and presenting them in such a way that people
> > maintain interest in our ADD society.
> > I don't think that is a valid excuse. When I grew up we had little
in
> educational material. Electronics books were very expensive so I had to
> bicycle five miles to a library and then back. Often just to find out
> that all the books for TTL logic design had been taken by others. Then
> all you could do is put in a request, which was fulfilled in four weeks.
> If the other guys brought it back in time ...
You were lucky to have such a library system. Most of the ones I had
access to only allowed 7 days checkout time, and if you were more than 2 days
late returning them, you were restricted to only being able of reading a book
while inside the library. And forbidden to ever check any book out again.
Extremely lucky if the library had any book you were interested in too.
> > The further problem is that there is very little
money in doing this.
> > The people who know how to develop boards and write libraries are much
> > more likely to go that route. Of course, the real money comes in
> > selling these modules. Heck, you could probably afford 20,000 square
> > feet in downtown Manhattan selling modules...
> > People I've met weren't really getting rich off of this. And with
TI I
> would not be surprised if the profit margin on MSP430 modules is zero or
> negative. When one guy at a TI seminar asked if he could buy several
> thousand the presenter almost choked. Then he said "Well, that wasn't
> really the intent and could be a problem".
> >> This is where TI MSP430 modules come in. They are cheap and work well.
> >> But you have to build some component-level hardware around them in order
> >> to make them do something meaningful in life.
> >
> > I would argue that TI produced the perfect educator's tool in the
> > MSP430 Launchpad, but unfortunately they have failed miserably at
> > developing the coursework materials to make it useful to educators and
> > students.
> >
You would gain very little experience or knowledge if you didn't
have to design/develope cpmponent-level hardware to expand the module's
usefulness. It would be like snapping tonka-toys together instead.
> But I would expect our taxpayer-paid educators to do
the educatin' and
> writin' :-)
The educator's tools and manuals should be the responsibility of the ones
who developed the launch pad, and not taxpayer-paid educators. Their
responsibilities should be concentrated solely on teaching the young people in
schools. They should never be involved with commercial developers and their
products not normally used in school lessons at tax payers expense.
> > To make matters worse, they now seem to be pushing
the Energia Arduino
> > platform which does everything to obscure the beauty of the MSP430
> > chips themselves.
> > That's IMHO the wong path. If people want system building blocks
they'll
> quickly head over to some vastly more powerful processor.
>
> But as Matthias wrote, there are always some folks from the maker group
> who dive in backwards later and learn component-level design. IME they
> are far too few though. Whenever I helped clients find good board-level
> designers it was a painfully difficult process.
>
> --
> Regards, Joerg
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
>
Is the MSP430 a dead end
Started by ●June 28, 2013
Reply by ●July 2, 20132013-07-02
Reply by ●July 3, 20132013-07-03
As one of the "hobbyist/makers" I have used this group, the web, books (lots of
books) as resources, and have in particular found good advice here, my lack of
education in this discipline notwithstanding. So, even if this discussion has
not been specifically about EE and MCu's, I have found it interesting.
And, I have especially appreciated the help I've received when posting
questions (even the "dumb" ones due to my ignorance...)
So, even if the activity on this forum has dropped, I still pay attention to keep an eye out for solutions to problems I may not even know I have. :)
Bob
--- In m..., Peter Johansson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
> > I like this maker movement because it gets kids interested in something
> > real instead of drugs.
>
> Also, television and video games...
>
> > There is only one problem: Makers are essentially
> > systems guys. Many lose or never even acquire any serious know-how about
> > component level design. They can plug together modules but cannot design
> > the modules.
>
> I agree entirely. It is an interesting problem, one I have thought
> about a fair bit.
>
> What is lacking are the educational materials that bootstrap learning
> from first principles, and presenting them in such a way that people
> maintain interest in our ADD society.
>
> The further problem is that there is very little money in doing this.
> The people who know how to develop boards and write libraries are much
> more likely to go that route. Of course, the real money comes in
> selling these modules. Heck, you could probably afford 20,000 square
> feet in downtown Manhattan selling modules...
>
> > This is where TI MSP430 modules come in. They are cheap and work well.
> > But you have to build some component-level hardware around them in order
> > to make them do something meaningful in life.
>
> I would argue that TI produced the perfect educator's tool in the
> MSP430 Launchpad, but unfortunately they have failed miserably at
> developing the coursework materials to make it useful to educators and
> students.
>
> To make matters worse, they now seem to be pushing the Energia Arduino
> platform which does everything to obscure the beauty of the MSP430
> chips themselves.
>
> -p.
>
So, even if the activity on this forum has dropped, I still pay attention to keep an eye out for solutions to problems I may not even know I have. :)
Bob
--- In m..., Peter Johansson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
>
> > I like this maker movement because it gets kids interested in something
> > real instead of drugs.
>
> Also, television and video games...
>
> > There is only one problem: Makers are essentially
> > systems guys. Many lose or never even acquire any serious know-how about
> > component level design. They can plug together modules but cannot design
> > the modules.
>
> I agree entirely. It is an interesting problem, one I have thought
> about a fair bit.
>
> What is lacking are the educational materials that bootstrap learning
> from first principles, and presenting them in such a way that people
> maintain interest in our ADD society.
>
> The further problem is that there is very little money in doing this.
> The people who know how to develop boards and write libraries are much
> more likely to go that route. Of course, the real money comes in
> selling these modules. Heck, you could probably afford 20,000 square
> feet in downtown Manhattan selling modules...
>
> > This is where TI MSP430 modules come in. They are cheap and work well.
> > But you have to build some component-level hardware around them in order
> > to make them do something meaningful in life.
>
> I would argue that TI produced the perfect educator's tool in the
> MSP430 Launchpad, but unfortunately they have failed miserably at
> developing the coursework materials to make it useful to educators and
> students.
>
> To make matters worse, they now seem to be pushing the Energia Arduino
> platform which does everything to obscure the beauty of the MSP430
> chips themselves.
>
> -p.
>
Reply by ●July 3, 20132013-07-03
jrader30 wrote:
>
> --- In m..., Joerg wrote:
>> Peter Johansson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like this maker movement because it gets kids interested in
>>>> something real instead of drugs.
>>> Also, television and video games...
>>>
>> The real problem are parents that buy them just about anything. No
>> incentive to build and repair.
>>>> There is only one problem: Makers are essentially systems guys.
>>>> Many lose or never even acquire any serious know-how about
>>>> component level design. They can plug together modules but
>>>> cannot design the modules.
>>> I agree entirely. It is an interesting problem, one I have
>>> thought about a fair bit.
>>>
>>> What is lacking are the educational materials that bootstrap
>>> learning from first principles, and presenting them in such a way
>>> that people maintain interest in our ADD society.
>>>
>> I don't think that is a valid excuse. When I grew up we had little
>> in educational material. Electronics books were very expensive so I
>> had to bicycle five miles to a library and then back. Often just to
>> find out that all the books for TTL logic design had been taken by
>> others. Then all you could do is put in a request, which was
>> fulfilled in four weeks. If the other guys brought it back in time
>> ...
> You were lucky to have such a library system. Most of the ones I had
> access to only allowed 7 days checkout time, and if you were more
> than 2 days late returning them, you were restricted to only being
> able of reading a book while inside the library. And forbidden to
> ever check any book out again. Extremely lucky if the library had any
> book you were interested in too.
>
Yikes! I didn't know libraries could be this restrictive. How can you
possibly plow through something like the olden-day equivalent of "The
Art of Electronics" in 7 days, as a kid? We usually had 3 weeks,
sometimes 4 weeks. It could be extended for the same number of weeks
unless someone else laid claim on the book.
[...]
>
>> But I would expect our taxpayer-paid educators to do the educatin'
>> and writin' :-)
>>
>> The educator's tools and manuals should be the responsibility of the
> ones who developed the launch pad, and not taxpayer-paid educators.
> Their responsibilities should be concentrated solely on teaching the
> young people in schools. They should never be involved with
> commercial developers and their products not normally used in school
> lessons at tax payers expense.
>
I was assuming with "educator's tool" Peter meant the educational
system, like schools. Then it is the job of the taxpayer (or the
tuition-payer in some colleges) to procure the material. Either by
having it written by a skilled teacher or by paying a company to do that.
[...]
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
>
> --- In m..., Joerg wrote:
>> Peter Johansson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like this maker movement because it gets kids interested in
>>>> something real instead of drugs.
>>> Also, television and video games...
>>>
>> The real problem are parents that buy them just about anything. No
>> incentive to build and repair.
>>>> There is only one problem: Makers are essentially systems guys.
>>>> Many lose or never even acquire any serious know-how about
>>>> component level design. They can plug together modules but
>>>> cannot design the modules.
>>> I agree entirely. It is an interesting problem, one I have
>>> thought about a fair bit.
>>>
>>> What is lacking are the educational materials that bootstrap
>>> learning from first principles, and presenting them in such a way
>>> that people maintain interest in our ADD society.
>>>
>> I don't think that is a valid excuse. When I grew up we had little
>> in educational material. Electronics books were very expensive so I
>> had to bicycle five miles to a library and then back. Often just to
>> find out that all the books for TTL logic design had been taken by
>> others. Then all you could do is put in a request, which was
>> fulfilled in four weeks. If the other guys brought it back in time
>> ...
> You were lucky to have such a library system. Most of the ones I had
> access to only allowed 7 days checkout time, and if you were more
> than 2 days late returning them, you were restricted to only being
> able of reading a book while inside the library. And forbidden to
> ever check any book out again. Extremely lucky if the library had any
> book you were interested in too.
>
Yikes! I didn't know libraries could be this restrictive. How can you
possibly plow through something like the olden-day equivalent of "The
Art of Electronics" in 7 days, as a kid? We usually had 3 weeks,
sometimes 4 weeks. It could be extended for the same number of weeks
unless someone else laid claim on the book.
[...]
>
>> But I would expect our taxpayer-paid educators to do the educatin'
>> and writin' :-)
>>
>> The educator's tools and manuals should be the responsibility of the
> ones who developed the launch pad, and not taxpayer-paid educators.
> Their responsibilities should be concentrated solely on teaching the
> young people in schools. They should never be involved with
> commercial developers and their products not normally used in school
> lessons at tax payers expense.
>
I was assuming with "educator's tool" Peter meant the educational
system, like schools. Then it is the job of the taxpayer (or the
tuition-payer in some colleges) to procure the material. Either by
having it written by a skilled teacher or by paying a company to do that.
[...]
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Reply by ●July 3, 20132013-07-03
jrader30 wrote:
>> The educator's tools and manuals should be the responsibility of the
>> ones who developed the launch pad, and not taxpayer-paid educators.
>> Their responsibilities should be concentrated solely on teaching the
>> young people in schools. They should never be involved with
>> commercial developers and their products not normally used in school
>> lessons at tax payers expense.
Joerg wrote:
> I was assuming with "educator's tool" Peter meant the educational
> system, like schools. Then it is the job of the taxpayer (or the
> tuition-payer in some colleges) to procure the material. Either by
> having it written by a skilled teacher or by paying a company to do that.
I did not mean to imply that it was anyones responsibility in
particular to develop the educational materials, merely that TI was
losing out as a result of their lack of availability. TI was clearly
selling the launchpad at a loss when it was $4.30 with free shipping
and my guess is that even $10 is likely a break-even price. The goal
of providing such a tool is clearly to expose more people to the
platform in the hope that it will eventually result in the sale of
more chips.
However, it has been my observation that a substantial number of
people who purchase the LaunchPad suffer extreme pains in getting
started with it. According to a comment made by one of TI's own
educational marketing reps, Universities had little interest in using
the LaunchPad even when TI provided the hardware for free. While I
have no way of knowing the exact reason for this, I have a strong
suspicion it is because of the lack of available materials.
The LaunchPad has clearly done wonders to improve the exposure of the
MSP430, but I believe it has only realized a fraction of its
potential.
-p.
>> The educator's tools and manuals should be the responsibility of the
>> ones who developed the launch pad, and not taxpayer-paid educators.
>> Their responsibilities should be concentrated solely on teaching the
>> young people in schools. They should never be involved with
>> commercial developers and their products not normally used in school
>> lessons at tax payers expense.
Joerg wrote:
> I was assuming with "educator's tool" Peter meant the educational
> system, like schools. Then it is the job of the taxpayer (or the
> tuition-payer in some colleges) to procure the material. Either by
> having it written by a skilled teacher or by paying a company to do that.
I did not mean to imply that it was anyones responsibility in
particular to develop the educational materials, merely that TI was
losing out as a result of their lack of availability. TI was clearly
selling the launchpad at a loss when it was $4.30 with free shipping
and my guess is that even $10 is likely a break-even price. The goal
of providing such a tool is clearly to expose more people to the
platform in the hope that it will eventually result in the sale of
more chips.
However, it has been my observation that a substantial number of
people who purchase the LaunchPad suffer extreme pains in getting
started with it. According to a comment made by one of TI's own
educational marketing reps, Universities had little interest in using
the LaunchPad even when TI provided the hardware for free. While I
have no way of knowing the exact reason for this, I have a strong
suspicion it is because of the lack of available materials.
The LaunchPad has clearly done wonders to improve the exposure of the
MSP430, but I believe it has only realized a fraction of its
potential.
-p.
Reply by ●July 3, 20132013-07-03
--- In m..., Joerg wrote:
>
> jrader30 wrote:
> >
> > --- In m..., Joerg wrote:
> >> Peter Johansson wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I like this maker movement because it gets kids interested in
> >>>> something real instead of drugs.
> >>> Also, television and video games...
> >>>
> >> The real problem are parents that buy them just about anything. No
> >> incentive to build and repair.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> There is only one problem: Makers are essentially systems guys.
> >>>> Many lose or never even acquire any serious know-how about
> >>>> component level design. They can plug together modules but
> >>>> cannot design the modules.
> >>> I agree entirely. It is an interesting problem, one I have
> >>> thought about a fair bit.
> >>>
> >>> What is lacking are the educational materials that bootstrap
> >>> learning from first principles, and presenting them in such a way
> >>> that people maintain interest in our ADD society.
> >>>
> >> I don't think that is a valid excuse. When I grew up we had little
> >> in educational material. Electronics books were very expensive so I
> >> had to bicycle five miles to a library and then back. Often just to
> >> find out that all the books for TTL logic design had been taken by
> >> others. Then all you could do is put in a request, which was
> >> fulfilled in four weeks. If the other guys brought it back in time
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> > You were lucky to have such a library system. Most of the ones I had
> > access to only allowed 7 days checkout time, and if you were more
> > than 2 days late returning them, you were restricted to only being
> > able of reading a book while inside the library. And forbidden to
> > ever check any book out again. Extremely lucky if the library had any
> > book you were interested in too.
> > Yikes! I didn't know libraries could be this restrictive. How can you
> possibly plow through something like the olden-day equivalent of "The
> Art of Electronics" in 7 days, as a kid? We usually had 3 weeks,
> sometimes 4 weeks. It could be extended for the same number of weeks
> unless someone else laid claim on the book.
>
This was during the 50's, I went to mostly country type schools which had very small selections of books. Many of which were donations, as most of these libraries could not afford to purchase many books back then, and were dependent on donations just to be able to operate daily. It wasn't till the late 50's that I attended a school in a large city (Cleveland and Dayton), and I really enjoyed their libraries! Felt like a kid in a candy factory!
> [...]
>
> >
> >> But I would expect our taxpayer-paid educators to do the educatin'
> >> and writin' :-)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The educator's tools and manuals should be the responsibility of the
> > ones who developed the launch pad, and not taxpayer-paid educators.
> > Their responsibilities should be concentrated solely on teaching the
> > young people in schools. They should never be involved with
> > commercial developers and their products not normally used in school
> > lessons at tax payers expense.
> > I was assuming with "educator's tool" Peter meant the educational
> system, like schools. Then it is the job of the taxpayer (or the
> tuition-payer in some colleges) to procure the material. Either by
> having it written by a skilled teacher or by paying a company to do that.
>
Joerg; I misunderstood your statement and apologise. I now understand and agree with you. Also yesterday my mouse started acting weird and giving many clicks instead on one, thus the double post. I have replaced it and all back to normal(?)
> [...]
>
> --
> Regards, Joerg
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
>
>
> jrader30 wrote:
> >
> > --- In m..., Joerg wrote:
> >> Peter Johansson wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I like this maker movement because it gets kids interested in
> >>>> something real instead of drugs.
> >>> Also, television and video games...
> >>>
> >> The real problem are parents that buy them just about anything. No
> >> incentive to build and repair.
> >>
> >>
> >>>> There is only one problem: Makers are essentially systems guys.
> >>>> Many lose or never even acquire any serious know-how about
> >>>> component level design. They can plug together modules but
> >>>> cannot design the modules.
> >>> I agree entirely. It is an interesting problem, one I have
> >>> thought about a fair bit.
> >>>
> >>> What is lacking are the educational materials that bootstrap
> >>> learning from first principles, and presenting them in such a way
> >>> that people maintain interest in our ADD society.
> >>>
> >> I don't think that is a valid excuse. When I grew up we had little
> >> in educational material. Electronics books were very expensive so I
> >> had to bicycle five miles to a library and then back. Often just to
> >> find out that all the books for TTL logic design had been taken by
> >> others. Then all you could do is put in a request, which was
> >> fulfilled in four weeks. If the other guys brought it back in time
> >> ...
> >>
> >>
> > You were lucky to have such a library system. Most of the ones I had
> > access to only allowed 7 days checkout time, and if you were more
> > than 2 days late returning them, you were restricted to only being
> > able of reading a book while inside the library. And forbidden to
> > ever check any book out again. Extremely lucky if the library had any
> > book you were interested in too.
> > Yikes! I didn't know libraries could be this restrictive. How can you
> possibly plow through something like the olden-day equivalent of "The
> Art of Electronics" in 7 days, as a kid? We usually had 3 weeks,
> sometimes 4 weeks. It could be extended for the same number of weeks
> unless someone else laid claim on the book.
>
This was during the 50's, I went to mostly country type schools which had very small selections of books. Many of which were donations, as most of these libraries could not afford to purchase many books back then, and were dependent on donations just to be able to operate daily. It wasn't till the late 50's that I attended a school in a large city (Cleveland and Dayton), and I really enjoyed their libraries! Felt like a kid in a candy factory!
> [...]
>
> >
> >> But I would expect our taxpayer-paid educators to do the educatin'
> >> and writin' :-)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The educator's tools and manuals should be the responsibility of the
> > ones who developed the launch pad, and not taxpayer-paid educators.
> > Their responsibilities should be concentrated solely on teaching the
> > young people in schools. They should never be involved with
> > commercial developers and their products not normally used in school
> > lessons at tax payers expense.
> > I was assuming with "educator's tool" Peter meant the educational
> system, like schools. Then it is the job of the taxpayer (or the
> tuition-payer in some colleges) to procure the material. Either by
> having it written by a skilled teacher or by paying a company to do that.
>
Joerg; I misunderstood your statement and apologise. I now understand and agree with you. Also yesterday my mouse started acting weird and giving many clicks instead on one, thus the double post. I have replaced it and all back to normal(?)
> [...]
>
> --
> Regards, Joerg
>
> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
>
Reply by ●July 4, 20132013-07-04
Peter Johansson :
> The LaunchPad has clearly done wonders to improve the exposure of the
> MSP430, but I believe it has only realized a fraction of its
> potential.
Compared to a Ardunio (and shield) the launchpad is not really something for
a beginner. One example: in case you want to control a stepper motor in your
project - with arduino you just get a ardunio uno (27Eur) and a motor shield
(30Eur), a stepper (20Eur) plug it together, write 10 lines of code
(according to the example), connect the motor (using screws) - and you are
finished. No need to know how to implement a H bridge, timer routines, PWM
output and so on, and it is ready for integration in the code of your
project. And you can solve many other tasks by using other shields in a
similar way.
With the launchpad you can not do much more as just blinking some LED's
(without soldering) ;-).
M.
> The LaunchPad has clearly done wonders to improve the exposure of the
> MSP430, but I believe it has only realized a fraction of its
> potential.
Compared to a Ardunio (and shield) the launchpad is not really something for
a beginner. One example: in case you want to control a stepper motor in your
project - with arduino you just get a ardunio uno (27Eur) and a motor shield
(30Eur), a stepper (20Eur) plug it together, write 10 lines of code
(according to the example), connect the motor (using screws) - and you are
finished. No need to know how to implement a H bridge, timer routines, PWM
output and so on, and it is ready for integration in the code of your
project. And you can solve many other tasks by using other shields in a
similar way.
With the launchpad you can not do much more as just blinking some LED's
(without soldering) ;-).
M.
Reply by ●July 4, 20132013-07-04
I must admit that I haven't looked closely at the ARDUINO, but the
limited views i have had seem to show that the programming language is
more like a series of API style calls than a traditional programming
language, so it is obviously going to be much simpler than implementing
from scratch as you would need to do with a Launchpad. Which suggests
that either Ti haven't really analysed their competition or their market
very well, if it was aimed at the vast hobbyist (and maker) market out
there, or that they didn't plan to target this market in the first
place. I'm kind of leaning to the former It wouldn't be particularly
difficult I think to write some base functions that could then be
stacked by users to produce more complex functions, which to me is the
logical way to tackle this. I think that a lot of flexibility is lost in
this approach, but then it suits people who don't want to invest
hundreds of hours learning a complex language.
If such a language existed for the MSP430 then I think the launchpad
would be vastly more popular, but do Ti want it to be? ARDUINOs are sold
at a profit, launchpads don't appear to be, which seems to suggest the
opposite to my thoughts above, that they weren't intended for hobbyists,
or to be sold as the base for a system, and yet the active pushing of
booster packs seems to go against that.
Weird
Al
On 4/07/2013 4:30 PM, Matthias Weingart wrote:
> Peter Johansson :
>
>> The LaunchPad has clearly done wonders to improve the exposure of the
>> MSP430, but I believe it has only realized a fraction of its
>> potential.
>
> Compared to a Ardunio (and shield) the launchpad is not really something for
> a beginner. One example: in case you want to control a stepper motor in your
> project - with arduino you just get a ardunio uno (27Eur) and a motor shield
> (30Eur), a stepper (20Eur) plug it together, write 10 lines of code
> (according to the example), connect the motor (using screws) - and you are
> finished. No need to know how to implement a H bridge, timer routines, PWM
> output and so on, and it is ready for integration in the code of your
> project. And you can solve many other tasks by using other shields in a
> similar way.
> With the launchpad you can not do much more as just blinking some LED's
> (without soldering) ;-).
>
> M.
>
>
limited views i have had seem to show that the programming language is
more like a series of API style calls than a traditional programming
language, so it is obviously going to be much simpler than implementing
from scratch as you would need to do with a Launchpad. Which suggests
that either Ti haven't really analysed their competition or their market
very well, if it was aimed at the vast hobbyist (and maker) market out
there, or that they didn't plan to target this market in the first
place. I'm kind of leaning to the former It wouldn't be particularly
difficult I think to write some base functions that could then be
stacked by users to produce more complex functions, which to me is the
logical way to tackle this. I think that a lot of flexibility is lost in
this approach, but then it suits people who don't want to invest
hundreds of hours learning a complex language.
If such a language existed for the MSP430 then I think the launchpad
would be vastly more popular, but do Ti want it to be? ARDUINOs are sold
at a profit, launchpads don't appear to be, which seems to suggest the
opposite to my thoughts above, that they weren't intended for hobbyists,
or to be sold as the base for a system, and yet the active pushing of
booster packs seems to go against that.
Weird
Al
On 4/07/2013 4:30 PM, Matthias Weingart wrote:
> Peter Johansson :
>
>> The LaunchPad has clearly done wonders to improve the exposure of the
>> MSP430, but I believe it has only realized a fraction of its
>> potential.
>
> Compared to a Ardunio (and shield) the launchpad is not really something for
> a beginner. One example: in case you want to control a stepper motor in your
> project - with arduino you just get a ardunio uno (27Eur) and a motor shield
> (30Eur), a stepper (20Eur) plug it together, write 10 lines of code
> (according to the example), connect the motor (using screws) - and you are
> finished. No need to know how to implement a H bridge, timer routines, PWM
> output and so on, and it is ready for integration in the code of your
> project. And you can solve many other tasks by using other shields in a
> similar way.
> With the launchpad you can not do much more as just blinking some LED's
> (without soldering) ;-).
>
> M.
>
>
Reply by ●July 4, 20132013-07-04
Onestone :
> If such a language existed for the MSP430 then I think the launchpad
> would be vastly more popular, but do Ti want it to be? ARDUINOs are sold
Look here: http://www.energia.nu/
It is a project to move the lauchpad to the ardunio platform (and others). It
seems not to be a TI project (however TI is linking to it from their
homepage).
Btw. here you can see how simple it is to get started with stepper motors:
http://www.ladyada.net/make/mshield/use.html
Take a look at the code section: just some C calls. However only simple
solutions are possible; for instance it is not possible to let the stepper
run continously in the background; however the code is available fully, you
can implement and improve it...
M.
> If such a language existed for the MSP430 then I think the launchpad
> would be vastly more popular, but do Ti want it to be? ARDUINOs are sold
Look here: http://www.energia.nu/
It is a project to move the lauchpad to the ardunio platform (and others). It
seems not to be a TI project (however TI is linking to it from their
homepage).
Btw. here you can see how simple it is to get started with stepper motors:
http://www.ladyada.net/make/mshield/use.html
Take a look at the code section: just some C calls. However only simple
solutions are possible; for instance it is not possible to let the stepper
run continously in the background; however the code is available fully, you
can implement and improve it...
M.
Reply by ●July 4, 20132013-07-04
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Onestone wrote:
> I must admit that I haven't looked closely at the ARDUINO, but the
> limited views i have had seem to show that the programming language is
> more like a series of API style calls than a traditional programming
> language, so it is obviously going to be much simpler than implementing
> from scratch as you would need to do with a Launchpad. Which suggests
> that either Ti haven't really analysed their competition or their market
> very well, if it was aimed at the vast hobbyist (and maker) market out
> there, or that they didn't plan to target this market in the first
> place. I'm kind of leaning to the former It wouldn't be particularly
> difficult I think to write some base functions that could then be
> stacked by users to produce more complex functions, which to me is the
> logical way to tackle this. I think that a lot of flexibility is lost in
> this approach, but then it suits people who don't want to invest
> hundreds of hours learning a complex language.
>
> If such a language existed for the MSP430 then I think the launchpad
> would be vastly more popular, but do Ti want it to be? ARDUINOs are sold
> at a profit, launchpads don't appear to be, which seems to suggest the
> opposite to my thoughts above, that they weren't intended for hobbyists,
> or to be sold as the base for a system, and yet the active pushing of
> booster packs seems to go against that.
>
> Weird
I believe the starting point of the low cost development boards from
MCU vendors like TI, NXP, ST, etc, are not really geared toward
hobbyists, at least not initially.
The cost is so low that they can give them free to quite
larger audiences -- not the hobbyists, but engineers.
For examples, I got quite a few cheap boards from ST (STM32
F0, F2, F3, F4, VL discovery kits). Recently NXP held a
lunch and learn session at our company and gave away 10s
of free LPCXpresso boards for their Cortex M0/M3/M4
boards.
We occasionally got more expensive demo boards for free, but
usually we have to buy the demo boards which cost more than
US$100. In that case, we may not be able to look at some of
them since buying a demo board can be a hassle for engineers.
When you get it free, you may put it aside for a while but you
may look at it once you have the need.
On the other hand, since these boards are so cheap,
they will attract some hobbyists as well and there could
be some success if there are good free tools
accompanying them and if they are easily expandable.
So it makes sense for companies to look at hobbyists
as well. But I think they might be look at students
(who potentially becomes an engineer) and
not really hobbyists.
--
Xiaofan
> I must admit that I haven't looked closely at the ARDUINO, but the
> limited views i have had seem to show that the programming language is
> more like a series of API style calls than a traditional programming
> language, so it is obviously going to be much simpler than implementing
> from scratch as you would need to do with a Launchpad. Which suggests
> that either Ti haven't really analysed their competition or their market
> very well, if it was aimed at the vast hobbyist (and maker) market out
> there, or that they didn't plan to target this market in the first
> place. I'm kind of leaning to the former It wouldn't be particularly
> difficult I think to write some base functions that could then be
> stacked by users to produce more complex functions, which to me is the
> logical way to tackle this. I think that a lot of flexibility is lost in
> this approach, but then it suits people who don't want to invest
> hundreds of hours learning a complex language.
>
> If such a language existed for the MSP430 then I think the launchpad
> would be vastly more popular, but do Ti want it to be? ARDUINOs are sold
> at a profit, launchpads don't appear to be, which seems to suggest the
> opposite to my thoughts above, that they weren't intended for hobbyists,
> or to be sold as the base for a system, and yet the active pushing of
> booster packs seems to go against that.
>
> Weird
I believe the starting point of the low cost development boards from
MCU vendors like TI, NXP, ST, etc, are not really geared toward
hobbyists, at least not initially.
The cost is so low that they can give them free to quite
larger audiences -- not the hobbyists, but engineers.
For examples, I got quite a few cheap boards from ST (STM32
F0, F2, F3, F4, VL discovery kits). Recently NXP held a
lunch and learn session at our company and gave away 10s
of free LPCXpresso boards for their Cortex M0/M3/M4
boards.
We occasionally got more expensive demo boards for free, but
usually we have to buy the demo boards which cost more than
US$100. In that case, we may not be able to look at some of
them since buying a demo board can be a hassle for engineers.
When you get it free, you may put it aside for a while but you
may look at it once you have the need.
On the other hand, since these boards are so cheap,
they will attract some hobbyists as well and there could
be some success if there are good free tools
accompanying them and if they are easily expandable.
So it makes sense for companies to look at hobbyists
as well. But I think they might be look at students
(who potentially becomes an engineer) and
not really hobbyists.
--
Xiaofan
Reply by ●July 4, 20132013-07-04
Texas Instruments sells a Beaglebone Black development board that is
suitable for both beginners and hard core programmers. See:
Beginners use JavaScript, a bonescript library and a Cloud9 IDE. This
combination provides an easy to use programming environment similar to
what is available with Arduino. Hardcore programmers can use C. In the
Beaglebone Black community capes are used for expansion . Capes are
similar to Arduuino shields. A Beaglebone Black costs approximately two
times the cost of an Arduino Uno. The main advantage of the Beaglebone
Black is it is better suited for projects that need a lot of I/O
capability.
I am not promoting Beaglebone Black. Instead my object is to show TI
does have available an easy to program product like Arduino
Howard
On 7/4/2013 2:14 AM, Onestone wrote:
>
> I must admit that I haven't looked closely at the ARDUINO, but the
> limited views i have had seem to show that the programming language is
> more like a series of API style calls than a traditional programming
> language, so it is obviously going to be much simpler than implementing
> from scratch as you would need to do with a Launchpad. Which suggests
> that either Ti haven't really analysed their competition or their market
> very well, if it was aimed at the vast hobbyist (and maker) market out
> there, or that they didn't plan to target this market in the first
> place. I'm kind of leaning to the former It wouldn't be particularly
> difficult I think to write some base functions that could then be
> stacked by users to produce more complex functions, which to me is the
> logical way to tackle this. I think that a lot of flexibility is lost in
> this approach, but then it suits people who don't want to invest
> hundreds of hours learning a complex language.
>
> If such a language existed for the MSP430 then I think the launchpad
> would be vastly more popular, but do Ti want it to be? ARDUINOs are sold
> at a profit, launchpads don't appear to be, which seems to suggest the
> opposite to my thoughts above, that they weren't intended for hobbyists,
> or to be sold as the base for a system, and yet the active pushing of
> booster packs seems to go against that.
>
> Weird
>
> Al
>
> On 4/07/2013 4:30 PM, Matthias Weingart wrote:
> > Peter Johansson > >:
> >
> >> The LaunchPad has clearly done wonders to improve the exposure of the
> >> MSP430, but I believe it has only realized a fraction of its
> >> potential.
> >
> > Compared to a Ardunio (and shield) the launchpad is not really
> something for
> > a beginner. One example: in case you want to control a stepper motor
> in your
> > project - with arduino you just get a ardunio uno (27Eur) and a
> motor shield
> > (30Eur), a stepper (20Eur) plug it together, write 10 lines of code
> > (according to the example), connect the motor (using screws) - and
> you are
> > finished. No need to know how to implement a H bridge, timer
> routines, PWM
> > output and so on, and it is ready for integration in the code of your
> > project. And you can solve many other tasks by using other shields in a
> > similar way.
> > With the launchpad you can not do much more as just blinking some LED's
> > (without soldering) ;-).
> >
> > M.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
suitable for both beginners and hard core programmers. See:
Beginners use JavaScript, a bonescript library and a Cloud9 IDE. This
combination provides an easy to use programming environment similar to
what is available with Arduino. Hardcore programmers can use C. In the
Beaglebone Black community capes are used for expansion . Capes are
similar to Arduuino shields. A Beaglebone Black costs approximately two
times the cost of an Arduino Uno. The main advantage of the Beaglebone
Black is it is better suited for projects that need a lot of I/O
capability.
I am not promoting Beaglebone Black. Instead my object is to show TI
does have available an easy to program product like Arduino
Howard
On 7/4/2013 2:14 AM, Onestone wrote:
>
> I must admit that I haven't looked closely at the ARDUINO, but the
> limited views i have had seem to show that the programming language is
> more like a series of API style calls than a traditional programming
> language, so it is obviously going to be much simpler than implementing
> from scratch as you would need to do with a Launchpad. Which suggests
> that either Ti haven't really analysed their competition or their market
> very well, if it was aimed at the vast hobbyist (and maker) market out
> there, or that they didn't plan to target this market in the first
> place. I'm kind of leaning to the former It wouldn't be particularly
> difficult I think to write some base functions that could then be
> stacked by users to produce more complex functions, which to me is the
> logical way to tackle this. I think that a lot of flexibility is lost in
> this approach, but then it suits people who don't want to invest
> hundreds of hours learning a complex language.
>
> If such a language existed for the MSP430 then I think the launchpad
> would be vastly more popular, but do Ti want it to be? ARDUINOs are sold
> at a profit, launchpads don't appear to be, which seems to suggest the
> opposite to my thoughts above, that they weren't intended for hobbyists,
> or to be sold as the base for a system, and yet the active pushing of
> booster packs seems to go against that.
>
> Weird
>
> Al
>
> On 4/07/2013 4:30 PM, Matthias Weingart wrote:
> > Peter Johansson > >:
> >
> >> The LaunchPad has clearly done wonders to improve the exposure of the
> >> MSP430, but I believe it has only realized a fraction of its
> >> potential.
> >
> > Compared to a Ardunio (and shield) the launchpad is not really
> something for
> > a beginner. One example: in case you want to control a stepper motor
> in your
> > project - with arduino you just get a ardunio uno (27Eur) and a
> motor shield
> > (30Eur), a stepper (20Eur) plug it together, write 10 lines of code
> > (according to the example), connect the motor (using screws) - and
> you are
> > finished. No need to know how to implement a H bridge, timer
> routines, PWM
> > output and so on, and it is ready for integration in the code of your
> > project. And you can solve many other tasks by using other shields in a
> > similar way.
> > With the launchpad you can not do much more as just blinking some LED's
> > (without soldering) ;-).
> >
> > M.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
