Actually it's grown in multiple proportions.
What Parallax started has grown far beyond what Parallax offers now.
The PicBasic type compilers are far more powerful and offer the option
to program just about any PIC from small cheap 16C5X to powerful 18FXXX
parts. And most Basic compilers now are only slightly less efficient
than C.

Those that want to keep the simplistic "Stamp" like footprint have
numerous options but the Atom controllers from Basic Micro seem to be
leading the pack by offering all the features of the top end PicBasic
compilers with a footprint that plugs into any Basic Stamp board. Best
of all they maintained most of the PBasic command format.

If you want just chips, those are offered also without all the extra
baggage the Stamp requires. This allows an Atom chip to plug into any
board layed out for a 28 or 40 pin PIC chip.

Speed is also a bonus with the Atom running compiled code rather than
interpreted, Atoms run 15 times faster than Stamps and offer all the
PIC features such as Hardware PWM, Background USART, more I/O and more
RAM for Variables.

That's just the Atom, there are others such as BASICX, AVRSTAMP,
PicAxe, Hitachi Based AtomPro just to name a few. I've even developed
my own designs build arond the Atom chips (i.e. BasicBoard) and will
soon have Stamp footprint modules that can be programmed in C,
Assembly, PicBasic or anything else that can produce a .hex file.

Based on sales of PicBasic books, including mine, more and more people
are getting into programming PICs thanks to the simplicity. Some move
on to C, assembly but give a lot of credit to what Basic taught them.

One of my biggest rewards has been the email I've gotten from readers
of my book that tell me they got started or got back into electronics
because they were not intimidated by Micros anymore.


--- William Chops Westfield <westfw@MAC.COM> wrote:
> So what's with the state of "basic stamp clones", anyway?  there have
> been perhaps half-a-dozen such projects i've seen on the net, none
> ever
> getting so far as to produce source code, and most limiting
> themselves
> to the 64 bytes of eeprom in a 16F84.  Most have faded quiety into
> the
> woodwork.
>
> Fitting the original basic stamp in a 16c54 was quite a feat of
> programming,
> and parallax ought to be proud.  Fitting similar acting code in
> something
> like a 16f648 ought to be a piece of cake (8 times the program
> memory,
> more
> ram, a "full" 256 bytes of eeprom, and a nicer architecture.)
>
> 1) is parallax being hardnosed against such clones?  It's probably
> within
>     their rights, but usually such behavior gets publicized...
> 2) Do the different timings of internal eeprom and faster clocks and
> such
>     just make it unusable from an application compatibility point of
> view?
>     After all, basic is infamous for for/next 'timing loops."
> 3) or is it just that the availability of compilers and easier
> programming
>     of (flash based) modern PICs make the whole thing pointless?
> Anyone
> who
>     is willing to deal with chips rather than a pre-made board can
> write
>     faster and more functional code in about the same time...
>
> BillW
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
> mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu


=====
Chuck Hellebuyck
Electronic Products
chuck@elproducts.com
**** Home of the BasicBoard Development Platform*********
Great for learning, teaching and developing electronic, programmable
robotics and other embedded applications. Starter packages from $149.95.
http://www.elproducts.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu