Programming language recommendation?
We have a lot of folks here who do programming at a variety of levels. After a 20+ year hiatus, I am looking to get back into doing a bit of programming. The intent is not to get into it at a professional level, but to be able to rip off quick and dirty small programs. Data acquisition, taking the output of a program and merge and reformat it for specific purposes, which of course I can do in some cases with Excel, are a couple of things which come to mind. It will need the ability to interact with external hardware. However, the primary purpose is as a brain stretcher for someone who once thought F*RTR*N was a real language.
I am tempted to say that I am looking for the current generation BASIC, but I am want something a bit beyond that, though of course the ability to print "Hello World" with less than 10 lines of code is a plus. ;) And it needs to be something I can get into using a free or low cost compiler. I am not much interested in spending a few hundred dollars.
People have recommended Python, older versions of Delphi, early version of C, etc, as what I should do. Well, maybe. So if anyone has a good recommendation, please contact me OFF LIST. And did I say, it needs to be cheap?!
Alan WA4SCA
-----------------------------------
What's the opposite of Diversity? University!
Catherine McMillan
I write code for a living in C, C++, Java, C#, assembler, as well as half a dozen scripting languages such as perl, ruby,javascript etc. Do you self a big favor and learn C#.
You can download Visual Studio Express from Microsoft for free. Here is the link:
http://www.microsoft.com/express/vcsharp/
If you really insist on programming in Basic, you will find a VS Express version for Basic.
Tim AA6DQ
Tim Leonard
From: APBIDDLE@UNITED.NET To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 16:55:20 -0500 Subject: [amsat-bb] Programming language recommendation?
We have a lot of folks here who do programming at a variety of levels. After a 20+ year hiatus, I am looking to get back into doing a bit of programming. The intent is not to get into it at a professional level, but to be able to rip off quick and dirty small programs. Data acquisition, taking the output of a program and merge and reformat it for specific purposes, which of course I can do in some cases with Excel, are a couple of things which come to mind. It will need the ability to interact with external hardware. However, the primary purpose is as a brain stretcher for someone who once thought F*RTR*N was a real language.
I am tempted to say that I am looking for the current generation BASIC, but I am want something a bit beyond that, though of course the ability to print "Hello World" with less than 10 lines of code is a plus. ;) And it needs to be something I can get into using a free or low cost compiler. I am not much interested in spending a few hundred dollars.
People have recommended Python, older versions of Delphi, early version of C, etc, as what I should do. Well, maybe. So if anyone has a good recommendation, please contact me OFF LIST. And did I say, it needs to be cheap?!
Alan WA4SCA
What's the opposite of Diversity? University!
Catherine McMillan
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
_________________________________________________________________ Stay up to date on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Windows Live. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093185mrt/direct/01/
Along the same line: anyone on here doing PIC programming or know of a list for beginners? From CW keyers to Antenna control units and everything in between it looks like it would be fun to program some gadgets for around the shack...
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan P. Biddle" APBIDDLE@UNITED.NET To: "AMSAT-BB" amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 5:55 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Programming language recommendation?
We have a lot of folks here who do programming at a variety of levels. After a 20+ year hiatus, I am looking to get back into doing a bit of
JW wrote:
Along the same line: anyone on here doing PIC programming or know of a list for beginners? From CW keyers to Antenna control units and everything in between it looks like it would be fun to program some gadgets for around the shack...
Without lighting up a PIC/AVR flamewar, I've pretty much entirely moved from PIC to AVR. The hardware is generally two to four times faster for the same clock rate (gets more done per cycle) and is easier to program - you can make up an AVR programmer for the parallel port that's basically three resistors!
Furthermore, the toolchain is much better for AVR - Microchip are only interested in pushing their frankly dreadful Windows-only MPLAB software, while Atmel actively contribute to avr-gcc, a cross-platform toolchain based on the industry standard gcc. The whole AVR community seems a lot better than the PIC one, and I say that as a long-standing user of PIC microcontrollers.
In short, PIC is great, but the community isn't as strong and the tools are rubbish. On the other hand, Microchip are always more than happy to sample parts and their customer support is *excellent*.
AVR is technically superior in pretty much every way, with an excellent community. Unfortunately Atmel's tech support are a dour bunch who are often hard to get good information out of, and not great at sending samples.
I haven't tried the ARM-based AVRs or the MIPS-based PICs yet, though. Those might be something to tempt me back to Microchip, if MIPS is as good as I remember it ;-)
Gordon
I appreciate Gordon's expert opinion below. If you'd like something that is very, very simple to work with in order to explore the world of PIC programming, you should also consider the picaxe line of products. These comprise PIC chips with a basic interpreter on board. The wiring for the programmer is very simple, and the toolchain is easy because it removes the compiling stage.
While I'm trying to move on to the atmel line, using this inexpensive programmer: http://www.ladyada.net/make/usbtinyisp/index.html
I still find the picaxe chips dead handy for all sorts of little jobs because so much is built into them.
As for computer programming, I would encourage someone returning to this practice to consider adding one of the cross-platform scripting languages to his or her arsenal. Ruby and Python are both good choices.
73, Bruce VE9QRP
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Gordon JC Pearce MM3YEQ gordonjcp@gjcp.net wrote:
JW wrote:
Along the same line: anyone on here doing PIC programming or know of a list for beginners? From CW keyers to Antenna control units and everything in between it looks like it would be fun to program some gadgets for around the shack...
Without lighting up a PIC/AVR flamewar, I've pretty much entirely moved from PIC to AVR. The hardware is generally two to four times faster for the same clock rate (gets more done per cycle) and is easier to program
- you can make up an AVR programmer for the parallel port that's
basically three resistors!
Furthermore, the toolchain is much better for AVR - Microchip are only interested in pushing their frankly dreadful Windows-only MPLAB software, while Atmel actively contribute to avr-gcc, a cross-platform toolchain based on the industry standard gcc. The whole AVR community seems a lot better than the PIC one, and I say that as a long-standing user of PIC microcontrollers.
In short, PIC is great, but the community isn't as strong and the tools are rubbish. On the other hand, Microchip are always more than happy to sample parts and their customer support is *excellent*.
AVR is technically superior in pretty much every way, with an excellent community. Unfortunately Atmel's tech support are a dour bunch who are often hard to get good information out of, and not great at sending samples.
I haven't tried the ARM-based AVRs or the MIPS-based PICs yet, though. Those might be something to tempt me back to Microchip, if MIPS is as good as I remember it ;-)
Gordon _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Hi Bruce,
How does the Picaxe compare to the BASIC Stamp line from Parallax? I've built several Stamp projects, and they were very easy to deal with.
Greg KO6TH
----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 23:07:38 -0300 From: ve9qrp@gmail.com To: gordonjcp@gjcp.net CC: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Programming language recommendation?
I appreciate Gordon's expert opinion below. If you'd like something that is very, very simple to work with in order to explore the world of PIC programming, you should also consider the picaxe line of products. These comprise PIC chips with a basic interpreter on board. The wiring for the programmer is very simple, and the toolchain is easy because it removes the compiling stage.
While I'm trying to move on to the atmel line, using this inexpensive programmer: http://www.ladyada.net/make/usbtinyisp/index.html
I still find the picaxe chips dead handy for all sorts of little jobs because so much is built into them.
As for computer programming, I would encourage someone returning to this practice to consider adding one of the cross-platform scripting languages to his or her arsenal. Ruby and Python are both good choices.
73, Bruce VE9QRP
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Gordon JC Pearce MM3YEQ wrote:
JW wrote:
Along the same line: anyone on here doing PIC programming or know of a list for beginners? From CW keyers to Antenna control units and everything in between it looks like it would be fun to program some gadgets for around the shack...
Without lighting up a PIC/AVR flamewar, I've pretty much entirely moved from PIC to AVR. The hardware is generally two to four times faster for the same clock rate (gets more done per cycle) and is easier to program
- you can make up an AVR programmer for the parallel port that's
basically three resistors!
Furthermore, the toolchain is much better for AVR - Microchip are only interested in pushing their frankly dreadful Windows-only MPLAB software, while Atmel actively contribute to avr-gcc, a cross-platform toolchain based on the industry standard gcc. The whole AVR community seems a lot better than the PIC one, and I say that as a long-standing user of PIC microcontrollers.
In short, PIC is great, but the community isn't as strong and the tools are rubbish. On the other hand, Microchip are always more than happy to sample parts and their customer support is *excellent*.
AVR is technically superior in pretty much every way, with an excellent community. Unfortunately Atmel's tech support are a dour bunch who are often hard to get good information out of, and not great at sending samples.
I haven't tried the ARM-based AVRs or the MIPS-based PICs yet, though. Those might be something to tempt me back to Microchip, if MIPS is as good as I remember it ;-)
Gordon _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
_________________________________________________________________ See how Windows Mobile brings your life together—at home, work, or on the go. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093182mrt/direct/01/
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Greg D. ko6th_greg@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Bruce,
How does the Picaxe compare to the BASIC Stamp line from Parallax? I've built several Stamp projects, and they were very easy to deal with.
Greg KO6TH
I believe they are quite similar in concept, but when I looked into these devices, the picaxe chips were much cheaper than the basic stamp ones. For instance, SparkFun has the 14-pin version for $4. http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/categories.php?c=124 It could be that since then Parallax have improved their low-end offerings.
As one path for becoming familiar with this field, these chips have the advantage (over atmel and PIC) that much of the communication code being supported by built-in commands. SPI, I2C, serial, etc. can be explored with relative certainty that you're not going to mess things up. Of course, now that I know how things ought to work, I'm more confident to work with the atmel line. I suppose the disadvantage is that you learn a one-off programming language.
I have found that the picaxe line are excellent for working with children, as well. They were, after all, designed for the educational market in the first place.
A full comparison of these devices should probably also include the Arduino boards, which provide a standard platform, and might be best for those who do not want to get into soldering and breadboarding.
Lest anyone think this has nothing to do with satellite work, let me add two points: first, I have prototyped some code for the picaxe 28X1 that changes the values of digital pots in response to GS232 codes, in the manner of AA2TX's iRotor project.
Second, I would love to see a really simple programmable device put into orbit aboard a cubesat so that Middle School kids could write programs here on earth, then submit them to the command station to be uploaded to the bird. It would be a simple matter of specifying the input signals for the device, say a couple of temperature sensors and a light sensor, duplicating those materials in kits on earth, then letting the kids write code that would produce telemetry or what have you. Since the picaxe project is simply PIC code, using it would be a matter of finding a space-hardened PIC of the proper kind and loading it with the company's interpreter. One could dedicate one part of the telemetry stream to the output of these students' programs.
73, Bruce VE9QRP
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 23:07:38 -0300 From: ve9qrp@gmail.com To: gordonjcp@gjcp.net CC: amsat-bb@amsat.org Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Programming language recommendation?
I appreciate Gordon's expert opinion below. If you'd like something that is very, very simple to work with in order to explore the world of PIC programming, you should also consider the picaxe line of products. These comprise PIC chips with a basic interpreter on board. The wiring for the programmer is very simple, and the toolchain is easy because it removes the compiling stage.
While I'm trying to move on to the atmel line, using this inexpensive programmer: http://www.ladyada.net/make/usbtinyisp/index.html
I still find the picaxe chips dead handy for all sorts of little jobs because so much is built into them.
As for computer programming, I would encourage someone returning to this practice to consider adding one of the cross-platform scripting languages to his or her arsenal. Ruby and Python are both good choices.
73, Bruce VE9QRP
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:18 AM, Gordon JC Pearce MM3YEQ wrote:
JW wrote:
Along the same line: anyone on here doing PIC programming or know of a list for beginners? From CW keyers to Antenna control units and everything in between it looks like it would be fun to program some gadgets for around the shack...
Without lighting up a PIC/AVR flamewar, I've pretty much entirely moved from PIC to AVR. The hardware is generally two to four times faster for the same clock rate (gets more done per cycle) and is easier to program
- you can make up an AVR programmer for the parallel port that's
basically three resistors!
Furthermore, the toolchain is much better for AVR - Microchip are only interested in pushing their frankly dreadful Windows-only MPLAB software, while Atmel actively contribute to avr-gcc, a cross-platform toolchain based on the industry standard gcc. The whole AVR community seems a lot better than the PIC one, and I say that as a long-standing user of PIC microcontrollers.
In short, PIC is great, but the community isn't as strong and the tools are rubbish. On the other hand, Microchip are always more than happy to sample parts and their customer support is *excellent*.
AVR is technically superior in pretty much every way, with an excellent community. Unfortunately Atmel's tech support are a dour bunch who are often hard to get good information out of, and not great at sending samples.
I haven't tried the ARM-based AVRs or the MIPS-based PICs yet, though. Those might be something to tempt me back to Microchip, if MIPS is as good as I remember it ;-)
Gordon _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
See how Windows Mobile brings your life together—at home, work, or on the go. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/msnnkwxp1020093182mrt/direct/01/
Gordon JC Pearce MM3YEQ wrote:
Without lighting up a PIC/AVR flamewar, I've pretty much entirely moved from PIC to AVR.
Microchip is trying to buy Atmel, so it won't matter "soon". A merger will be a serious "game changer", who knows what will stay in the product line and what will die...
Nate WY0X
At 05:55 PM 10/4/2008, Alan P. Biddle wrote:
We have a lot of folks here who do programming at a variety of levels. After a 20+ year hiatus, I am looking to get back into doing a bit of programming. The intent is not to get into it at a professional level, but to be able to rip off quick and dirty small programs. Data acquisition, taking the output of a program and merge and reformat it for specific purposes, which of course I can do in some cases with Excel, are a couple of things which come to mind. It will need the ability to interact with external hardware. However, the primary purpose is as a brain stretcher for someone who once thought F*RTR*N was a real language.
I am tempted to say that I am looking for the current generation BASIC, but I am want something a bit beyond that, though of course the ability to print "Hello World" with less than 10 lines of code is a plus. ;) And it needs to be something I can get into using a free or low cost compiler. I am not much interested in spending a few hundred dollars.
People have recommended Python, older versions of Delphi, early version of C, etc, as what I should do. Well, maybe. So if anyone has a good recommendation, please contact me OFF LIST. And did I say, it needs to be cheap?!
Hi Alan,
If you don't mind a little learning curve, C++ will give you the most control and once you learn it is pretty easy to use. You can download Visual Studio Express C++ for free from the Microsoft web site. If you decide to go this way, buy "Programming Windows" by Charles Petzold. This has been the PC programming "Bible" since Windows 3.1. The current version is the 5th edition.
C++ is not that complicated but Windows is a little nasty to get used to. DOS is much easier (and DOS programs will still run under Vista) but you have to look around for something that will compile a DOS program. I used the now ancient Microsoft C++ V7 for InstantTune in 1994. Perhaps you could find it on eBay? I still use it under WinXP when I get the occasional change request (believe it or not I still get them!)
Another alternative if you are only doing simple things is the MixSoftware C compiler which is still available and only costs $20. I actually used this for professional projects many years ago and the manual is probably the best C run-time library manual ever written. I still use it even on current projects as a reference.
I hope I see you at the Symposium this year! If you have any questions, please fell free to email.
73, Tony AA2TX
Try Forth. There's a relatively modern Windows compiler here: http://www.dataman.ro/?page_id=37
Alan P. Biddle wrote:
We have a lot of folks here who do programming at a variety of levels. After a 20+ year hiatus, I am looking to get back into doing a bit of programming.
participants (9)
-
Alan P. Biddle -
Anthony Monteiro -
Bruce Robertson -
dsp engineer -
Gordon JC Pearce MM3YEQ -
Greg D. -
JW -
Nate Duehr -
Nigel Gunn G8IFF/W8IFF