On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:33:01AM -0700, William Chops Westfield wrote: >=20 > On Mar 29, 2013, at 12:41 AM, Peter wrote: >=20 > > Are embedded interpreters in the spirit of embedded=20 > > BASIC from the 1980s dead, or do they still have a place in 'universal' > > development systems today? >=20 > As far as I know, the "Basic Stamp" is still going pretty strong. It's n= ot open source, though. > (There was at one time at least a binary of an alternative implementation > (for 16f84) posted. > http://www.piclist.org/techref/postbot.asp?by=3Dthread&id=3DBasic+Stamp+d= ivided+by+four+source+code&w=3Dbody&tgt=3Dpost > for some discussion.) IIRC the Stamp was not embedded onchip. A PC is used to compile the source into tokens. The tokens were then loaded onto the EEPROM. I attempted my own implementation for a tokenized C-like language. I called it NPCI. Here's the top of the README: --------------------------------------------- NPCI (Nano Pseudo C Interpred)=20 Byron A. Jeff Last Update: 10/03/2001 Overview -------- NPCI is a miniature high level language. The primary purpose of its development is for small microcontroller work and teaching compiler principals. While I started with NPCI with backends for the Motorola 68000 family, the Motorola 68HC705 family, the Intel 8051 family, and the Microchip PIC 16CXX family of microprocessors and microcontrollers, I ended up with a bytecode compiler. The bytecode is interpreted by a native interpreter embedded in the processor memory. Currently the only active interpreter is for the PIC 16F877. ------------------------------------------------ Like the stamp, the compiler ran on the PC producing bytecode tokens that could be loaded on-chip. > It's a bit of a shame. A modern PIC would have enough EEPROM and > internal resources to be a pretty good basic stamp; significantly moreso > than the original v1 Stamp. Alas, Parallax probably never had the > motivation to push the price point down, and most people have avoided > treading the somewhat questionably moral ground of reverse-engineering > the thing.) >=20 > PICAXE may or may not be at least partially interpreted. Also proprietar= y. I believe that the PICAXE serves that purpose now. But again it isn't completely embedded on-chip. >=20 > > forcing the user to enter keyword tokens bound to keys >=20 > "Solved" because everyone has a "real" computer to do all the complex par= sing and tokenization. > Stamp Basic is very heavily tokenized before being loaded into the stamp'= s eeprom, for instance. >=20 Which is why the completely embedded development system is dead. I'm usually frustrated as a Linux guy because such development environments, pr= oprietary or not, are usually targeted towards Windows boxes. I'd be interested in one that is written in Python or Java making it truly cross platform. > Frankly, between ubiquitous desktop computers, advances in compiler > technology (and availavbilty), bootloaders, serial programming protocols, > and inexpensive device programmers, there isn't much reason to put an > interpreter in a chip any more. For the price of a Basic Stamp, you can > get an Arduino (or the PIC equivalent, like a USB BitWhacker) that > bootloads compiled code. For the price of one of those Basic-52 systems, > you can get a PicKit3 with a couple of target boards. (Not accounting > for inflation.) Yeah, you can't program them from your surplus ASR33 any > more. No one cares! Bingo. I look into this arena out of academic interest, not out of a real n= eed. BAJ >=20 > BillW >=20 >=20 > --=20 > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist --=20 Byron A. Jeff Chair: Department of Computer Science and Information Technology College of Information and Mathematical Sciences Clayton State University http://faculty.clayton.edu/bjeff --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .