Groups > comp.lang.forth > #50734 > unrolled thread

Re: BBC MicroBit has arrived - which Forth in Python is recommended for now?

Started by	Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com>
First post	2016-09-07 11:24 -0500
Last post	2016-09-11 04:51 -0700
Articles	20 on this page of 48 — 9 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →

#52021

From	Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Date	2016-10-18 16:42 -0700
Message-ID	<87d1ixp6ko.fsf@nightsong.com>
In reply to	#52020

lawrencedo99@gmail.com writes:
> It means you have a whole range of languages and tools and toolkits
> and applications available immediately to hand, not just one.

I don't see how that follows.  Certainly the minicomputer OS's of the
1970s/80s were "real OS's".  It said so right in the name.  But they
were mostly programmed in assembly code and the tool support wasn't all
that hot.

The microbit has comparable hardware resources to those minis and I
don't see any obstacle to it running comparable software including
multi-user timesharing.  Running a traditional Forth multitasker on it
would be quite natural, and that's comparable to what's called an RTOS
today.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52022

From	lawrencedo99@gmail.com
Date	2016-10-18 18:30 -0700
Message-ID	<3153cae1-36e0-4d97-92f5-00daacad8cfb@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#52021

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 12:42:48 PM UTC+13, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro writes:
>>
>> It means you have a whole range of languages and tools and toolkits
>> and applications available immediately to hand, not just one.
> 
> I don't see how that follows.  Certainly the minicomputer OS's of the
> 1970s/80s were "real OS's".  It said so right in the name.

But remember that Unix was already a big step forward at the time. Like Linux is today.

> But they were mostly programmed in assembly code and the tool support wasn't
> all that hot.
> 
> The microbit has comparable hardware resources to those minis and I
> don't see any obstacle to it running comparable software including
> multi-user timesharing.

And its tool support is equally not that hot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52030

From	JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com>
Date	2016-10-18 23:23 -0700
Message-ID	<6701b42e-1c44-473f-a86e-b6de823d830e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#52022

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 2:30:40 AM UTC+1, lawren...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 12:42:48 PM UTC+13, Paul Rubin wrote:
> >
> > Lawrence D’Oliveiro writes:
> >>
> >> It means you have a whole range of languages and tools and toolkits
> >> and applications available immediately to hand, not just one.
> > 
> > I don't see how that follows.  Certainly the minicomputer OS's of the
> > 1970s/80s were "real OS's".  It said so right in the name.
> 
> But remember that Unix was already a big step forward at the time. Like Linux is today.
> 
> > But they were mostly programmed in assembly code and the tool support wasn't
> > all that hot.
> > 
> > The microbit has comparable hardware resources to those minis and I
> > don't see any obstacle to it running comparable software including
> > multi-user timesharing.
> 
> And its tool support is equally not that hot.

I find some of the comments here from amusing to do not know what to call it. This is an educational tool by design as it spells this out clearly everywhere. To mention UNIX is taking it a bit far. But there is probably more support for the defined target group compared to ANY DevBoard discussed here. Give me a devboard that supports 4 languages - might be more with Forth added now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52033

From	rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date	2016-10-19 03:23 -0400
Message-ID	<nu7713$95d$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#52020

On 10/18/2016 6:30 PM, lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 3:20:48 PM UTC+13, rickman wrote:
>>
>> On 10/16/2016 9:40 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> The π is a real computer, that can run a real OS.
>>
>> So what is your point?
>
> It means you have a whole range of languages and tools and toolkits and applications available immediately to hand, not just one.

I still don't see what your point is.  You started off taking about 
hosting "its own development environment", then you claim the rPi is a 
"real" computer and now you are talking about other languages.

What the heck are you trying to say?  We aren't discussing the rPi, so 
why are you bringing this into the conversation?  I have an rPi, but 
that device is not relevant to this conversation.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52034

From	lawrencedo99@gmail.com
Date	2016-10-19 00:51 -0700
Message-ID	<caffab15-3243-4a8b-bcbb-0187c4be18e1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#52033

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 8:23:36 PM UTC+13, rickman wrote:
> What the heck are you trying to say?

Ah, so your questions are rhetorical? When you ask them, you don’t expect an answer--in fact, when you get an answer, that only irritates you?

I will keep that in mind in future.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52037

From	Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Date	2016-10-19 01:08 -0700
Message-ID	<8737jspxpr.fsf@nightsong.com>
In reply to	#52034

lawrencedo99@gmail.com writes:
> Ah, so your questions are rhetorical? When you ask them, you don’t
> expect an answer--in fact, when you get an answer, that only irritates
> you?

First you say the MicroBit is too small to self-host a dev environment,
then you repeatedly jack up your definition of a development environment
when people show that self-hosted development systems ran on
substantially weaker hardware than the MicroBit historically.  No they
weren't as fancy as what we have now, but people used them to write
real-life working code to solve practical problems.

What are you trying to prove?  Why are you here?  Some people are into
Forth and use it; some are interested in it but don't actually use it
much; but you don't even seem to be interested in it.  I can't tell what
your purpose is unless it's trolling.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52060

From	hughaguilar96@gmail.com
Date	2016-10-19 17:19 -0700
Message-ID	<31771417-48f2-4790-9a23-b24a203323ec@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#52037

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 1:08:51 AM UTC-7, Paul Rubin wrote:
> some are interested in [Forth] but don't actually use it
> much

This is Paul Rubin's own category --- actually this is pretty much everybody on c.l.f. --- when is the last time that we heard of anybody on c.l.f. actually writing a program in Forth?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52061

From	lawrencedo99@gmail.com
Date	2016-10-20 00:43 -0700
Message-ID	<2bd9a162-5aa3-41a8-8279-0d275443d3f9@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#52037

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 9:08:51 PM UTC+13, Paul Rubin wrote:
> First you say the MicroBit is too small to self-host a dev environment,
> then you repeatedly jack up your definition of a development environment
> when people show that self-hosted development systems ran on
> substantially weaker hardware than the MicroBit historically.

“dev environment” ≠ “real OS”.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52062

From	Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>
Date	2016-10-20 10:00 +0100
Message-ID	<20161020100051.795a847e@HP-6550b>
In reply to	#52061

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 00:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 9:08:51 PM UTC+13, Paul
> Rubin wrote:
> > First you say the MicroBit is too small to self-host a dev
> > environment, then you repeatedly jack up your definition of
> > a development environment when people show that self-hosted
> > development systems ran on substantially weaker hardware
> > than the MicroBit historically.
> 
> “dev environment” ≠ “real OS”.

I'm way past the age when I can only see things as black or
white.  

Why am I not permitted to have “dev environment” = “real OS”
for a project if that is what I want?

Jan Coombs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52073

From	rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date	2016-10-20 19:09 -0400
Message-ID	<nubiqg$dee$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#52062

On 10/20/2016 5:00 AM, Jan Coombs wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 00:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
> lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 9:08:51 PM UTC+13, Paul
>> Rubin wrote:
>>> First you say the MicroBit is too small to self-host a dev
>>> environment, then you repeatedly jack up your definition of
>>> a development environment when people show that self-hosted
>>> development systems ran on substantially weaker hardware
>>> than the MicroBit historically.
>>
>> “dev environment” ≠ “real OS”.
>
> I'm way past the age when I can only see things as black or
> white.
>
> Why am I not permitted to have “dev environment” = “real OS”
> for a project if that is what I want?

I am pretty much done with this part of the thread.  I'm not sure what 
Lawrence's intent is or even what his point is in his posts.  If anyone 
has something useful or interesting to discuss, fine.  Until then...

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52094

From	JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com>
Date	2016-10-21 13:14 -0700
Message-ID	<2a2eb65c-9048-4c1e-904b-a41fbcb88b78@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#52073

On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 12:09:25 AM UTC+1, rickman wrote:
> On 10/20/2016 5:00 AM, Jan Coombs wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 00:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
> > lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 9:08:51 PM UTC+13, Paul
> >> Rubin wrote:
> >>> First you say the MicroBit is too small to self-host a dev
> >>> environment, then you repeatedly jack up your definition of
> >>> a development environment when people show that self-hosted
> >>> development systems ran on substantially weaker hardware
> >>> than the MicroBit historically.
> >>
> >> “dev environment” ≠ “real OS”.
> >
> > I'm way past the age when I can only see things as black or
> > white.
> >
> > Why am I not permitted to have “dev environment” = “real OS”
> > for a project if that is what I want?
> 
> I am pretty much done with this part of the thread.  I'm not sure what 
> Lawrence's intent is or even what his point is in his posts.  If anyone 
> has something useful or interesting to discuss, fine.  Until then...
> 
> -- 
> 
> Rick C

Rick,  in comparison to you it is a starting point for many who have bought a MicroBit and even more for people here in the group, who want to try out the MicroBit running Forth - Mecrisp as a first Forth controlling the MicroBit - but hopefully many more to follow - as well to evaluate the MBED setup. As said before, there are many here it seems who think it is not a good product - sorry but they are commenting in the wrong thread as there are a million boards against them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52100

From	Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Date	2016-10-21 16:31 -0700
Message-ID	<87eg39nusw.fsf@nightsong.com>
In reply to	#52094

JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> writes:
> [Microbit] As said before, there are many here it seems who think it
> is not a good product - sorry but they are commenting in the wrong
> thread as there are a million boards against them.

I don't think anyone has said the Microbit is a bad product, just that
it's a bit expensive for what you get, and that there's other boards
of similar cost and power requirements but with more hardware resources.

Yes there were a lot of them given away in schools but I wonder how many
people bought them with personal funds, making it more likely that
they'll be used.  I think it will mostly be programmed in MicroPython
which it's barely powerful enough to run (MicroPython had to be hacked a
lot to fit in the Microbit).  It wouldn't surprise me if there's more
Arduinos than Microbits out there, and Arduinos run Forth perfectly well
too.  So I'd be more likely to pick a cheaper board than the Microbit
for Forth, or a more powerful one for MicroPython.

If they do a next-generation Microbit maybe they'll pick an MCU with
more memory.  That will make it more interesting.  Meanwhile there is a
German version now: 

http://hackaday.com/2016/10/18/germans-react-to-uks-microbit/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52118

From	rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date	2016-10-22 14:28 -0400
Message-ID	<nugb42$53q$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#52094

On 10/21/2016 4:14 PM, JUERGEN wrote:
> On Friday, October 21, 2016 at 12:09:25 AM UTC+1, rickman wrote:
>> On 10/20/2016 5:00 AM, Jan Coombs wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 00:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
>>> lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 9:08:51 PM UTC+13, Paul
>>>> Rubin wrote:
>>>>> First you say the MicroBit is too small to self-host a dev
>>>>> environment, then you repeatedly jack up your definition of
>>>>> a development environment when people show that self-hosted
>>>>> development systems ran on substantially weaker hardware
>>>>> than the MicroBit historically.
>>>>
>>>> “dev environment” ≠ “real OS”.
>>>
>>> I'm way past the age when I can only see things as black or
>>> white.
>>>
>>> Why am I not permitted to have “dev environment” = “real OS”
>>> for a project if that is what I want?
>>
>> I am pretty much done with this part of the thread.  I'm not sure what
>> Lawrence's intent is or even what his point is in his posts.  If anyone
>> has something useful or interesting to discuss, fine.  Until then...
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rick C
>
> Rick,  in comparison to you it is a starting point for many who have bought a MicroBit and even more for people here in the group, who want to try out the MicroBit running Forth - Mecrisp as a first Forth controlling the MicroBit - but hopefully many more to follow - as well to evaluate the MBED setup. As said before, there are many here it seems who think it is not a good product - sorry but they are commenting in the wrong thread as there are a million boards against them.

If the MicroBit gets kids interested in programming and microcomputers, 
then it is a good thing.  I think those who are saying it is not the 
greatest board (including me) are looking at it from their own 
perspective, more advanced programmers who need embedded platforms with 
a variety of features both in the hardware and the software.  So many of 
the needs and requirements do not overlap.  In that light it is not 
surprising some of those here are telling that they are not impressed 
with the high price of the Microbit or the lack of the features they 
desire.

We aren't saying the Microbit is a poor educational device, we are 
saying it isn't the best for us.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52119

From	Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Date	2016-10-22 12:14 -0700
Message-ID	<8737jonqlj.fsf@nightsong.com>
In reply to	#52118

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> If the MicroBit gets kids interested in programming and
> microcomputers, then it is a good thing....  In that light it is not
> surprising some of those here are telling that they are not impressed
> with the high price of the Microbit or the lack of the features they
> desire.

The intended student audience is getting them for free, so that's great
from their perspective.  It's just somewhat expensive for those of us
who have to pay for our own boards.

I do think the Microbit processor has too little capacity for its
intended audience, given that part of the educational plan is for
students to run MicroPython on it.  I've played with MicroPython a
little myself and have chatting with its developer community.
Apparently the Microbit is just barely powerful enough to run
MicroPython, and MicroPython had to be hacked rather mercilessly to get
it to fit in the Microbit.  So it would be significantly better for
MicroPython if the Microbit cpu had more ram, say 32k instead of 16k
(the 256k flash is sufficient).

From a Forth POV, the Microbit is great except for its cost.  256k of
flash and 16k of ram is enough to run a rather fancy Forth including a
code editor, blocks, etc.  It's also fine for embedded C, having far
more flash and ram than the popular Atmega328 used in the Arduino.  If
they sold it for $5 instead of $17, I'd buy a pile of them, but as it is
there are other boards that I see as more cost effective.

The ESP8266 has no usable on-chip flash afaik, so the cheap ESP modules
flooding Aliexpress generally have 4MB of SPI flash on the module.
Something like that on the Microbit (or an SD socket) would be terrific.
The ESP8266 itself has about 36k of usable ram and people are running
full MicroPython on it quite nicely.  Those boards are well under $5
(Wemos D1, see wemos.cc) so they're popular in the MicroPython crowd.

I expect if the Microbit gains traction there will be new and better
versions in the future.  It may get more interesting then.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53489

From	JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com>
Date	2016-12-22 02:21 -0800
Message-ID	<3f079bbb-ceb2-4604-891a-445179e9f783@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#52119

On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:14:34 PM UTC+1, Paul Rubin wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> > If the MicroBit gets kids interested in programming and
> > microcomputers, then it is a good thing....  In that light it is not
> > surprising some of those here are telling that they are not impressed
> > with the high price of the Microbit or the lack of the features they
> > desire.
> 
> The intended student audience is getting them for free, so that's great
> from their perspective.  It's just somewhat expensive for those of us
> who have to pay for our own boards.
> 
> I do think the Microbit processor has too little capacity for its
> intended audience, given that part of the educational plan is for
> students to run MicroPython on it.  I've played with MicroPython a
> little myself and have chatting with its developer community.
> Apparently the Microbit is just barely powerful enough to run
> MicroPython, and MicroPython had to be hacked rather mercilessly to get
> it to fit in the Microbit.  So it would be significantly better for
> MicroPython if the Microbit cpu had more ram, say 32k instead of 16k
> (the 256k flash is sufficient).
> 
> From a Forth POV, the Microbit is great except for its cost.  256k of
> flash and 16k of ram is enough to run a rather fancy Forth including a
> code editor, blocks, etc.  It's also fine for embedded C, having far
> more flash and ram than the popular Atmega328 used in the Arduino.  If
> they sold it for $5 instead of $17, I'd buy a pile of them, but as it is
> there are other boards that I see as more cost effective.
> 
> The ESP8266 has no usable on-chip flash afaik, so the cheap ESP modules
> flooding Aliexpress generally have 4MB of SPI flash on the module.
> Something like that on the Microbit (or an SD socket) would be terrific.
> The ESP8266 itself has about 36k of usable ram and people are running
> full MicroPython on it quite nicely.  Those boards are well under $5
> (Wemos D1, see wemos.cc) so they're popular in the MicroPython crowd.
> 
> I expect if the Microbit gains traction there will be new and better
> versions in the future.  It may get more interesting then.

 	spac...@gmail.com 	
Dec 21 (14 hours ago)
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 1:46:26 PM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> There was excellent  support from
> Steve Teal and Scott Baker
> with the 1802 IP
> and to get FIG-Forth 1802 running on the FPGA.

New Microbit ebook to touch on all of the other compilers to program it - in addition to the Forth. A light read over the Festive Season.  https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01N7K5QP2/ref=la_B00N8HVEZM_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482397704&sr=1-8

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53508

From	JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com>
Date	2016-12-23 11:47 -0800
Message-ID	<76f1046e-dab4-4ce3-8e2c-f9656a22a7f6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#53489

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 10:21:18 AM UTC, JUERGEN wrote:
> On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 8:14:34 PM UTC+1, Paul Rubin wrote:
> > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> > > If the MicroBit gets kids interested in programming and
> > > microcomputers, then it is a good thing....  In that light it is not
> > > surprising some of those here are telling that they are not impressed
> > > with the high price of the Microbit or the lack of the features they
> > > desire.
> > 
> > The intended student audience is getting them for free, so that's great
> > from their perspective.  It's just somewhat expensive for those of us
> > who have to pay for our own boards.
> > 
> > I do think the Microbit processor has too little capacity for its
> > intended audience, given that part of the educational plan is for
> > students to run MicroPython on it.  I've played with MicroPython a
> > little myself and have chatting with its developer community.
> > Apparently the Microbit is just barely powerful enough to run
> > MicroPython, and MicroPython had to be hacked rather mercilessly to get
> > it to fit in the Microbit.  So it would be significantly better for
> > MicroPython if the Microbit cpu had more ram, say 32k instead of 16k
> > (the 256k flash is sufficient).
> > 
> > From a Forth POV, the Microbit is great except for its cost.  256k of
> > flash and 16k of ram is enough to run a rather fancy Forth including a
> > code editor, blocks, etc.  It's also fine for embedded C, having far
> > more flash and ram than the popular Atmega328 used in the Arduino.  If
> > they sold it for $5 instead of $17, I'd buy a pile of them, but as it is
> > there are other boards that I see as more cost effective.
> > 
> > The ESP8266 has no usable on-chip flash afaik, so the cheap ESP modules
> > flooding Aliexpress generally have 4MB of SPI flash on the module.
> > Something like that on the Microbit (or an SD socket) would be terrific.
> > The ESP8266 itself has about 36k of usable ram and people are running
> > full MicroPython on it quite nicely.  Those boards are well under $5
> > (Wemos D1, see wemos.cc) so they're popular in the MicroPython crowd.
> > 
> > I expect if the Microbit gains traction there will be new and better
> > versions in the future.  It may get more interesting then.
> 
>  	spac...@gmail.com 	
> Dec 21 (14 hours ago)
> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 1:46:26 PM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > There was excellent  support from
> > Steve Teal and Scott Baker
> > with the 1802 IP
> > and to get FIG-Forth 1802 running on the FPGA.
> 
> New Microbit ebook to touch on all of the other compilers to program it - in addition to the Forth. A light read over the Festive Season.  https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01N7K5QP2/ref=la_B00N8HVEZM_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482397704&sr=1-8

And I got better: my early Christmas Present today, when the printed book arrived - very happy now with this extra present.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52098

From	lawrencedo99@gmail.com
Date	2016-10-21 15:07 -0700
Message-ID	<75afd03e-8ffa-461e-9f6f-8fef0e540ff6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#52062

On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 10:00:52 PM UTC+13, Jan Coombs wrote:
> Why am I not permitted to have “dev environment” = “real OS”
> for a project if that is what I want?

The Raspberry π gives you that choice, it seems the Micro:Bit does not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#52107

From	Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Date	2016-10-22 00:09 -0700
Message-ID	<877f90oo56.fsf@nightsong.com>
In reply to	#52098

lawrencedo99@gmail.com writes:
>> Why am I not permitted to have “dev environment” = “real OS”
> The Raspberry π gives you that choice, it seems the Micro:Bit does not.

I don't think "real OS" is a recognized term rather than something you
made up on the spur of the moment.

Also I'd like to see you set up a Raspberry Pi with a pile of sensors
and a wireless beacon, sending out 1 update per second for 1 full year
while powered by a watch battery: ti.com/sensortag 

Small processors still matter.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51915

From	Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Date	2016-10-16 17:17 -0700
Message-ID	<877f97rfqw.fsf@nightsong.com>
In reply to	#51904

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> the microbit has gotten cheaper...  Now you can get the board for
> under $15 and the Go kit for under $17.  I assume shipping is extra. ...
> Not sure I need one.  Now that it runs Mecrisp, it could be useful,
> but I have plenty of small MCU boards and no new needs for more.

I guess the microbit's 25 leds are cool but aside from that I still
don't see much interesting about that board.  I believe someone ported
some kind of Forth to the ESP8266.  Lots of people are running
MicroPython or eLua (NodeMCU) on those boards (Wemos D1 etc.) that are
under $3 on Aliexpress.  And of course ESP32 moduels are starting to
arrive.

The 8266 is somewhat lacking in i/o, the ESP32 has more, and the ARM
board I linked earlier has a ton.  It's basically a clone of the Maple
Mini and lots of people are using them.  I keep wanting to order a few
on general principles but will try to resist.  I still have a couple of
Stellaris Launchpads sitting around doing nothing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50828

From	Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>
Date	2016-09-10 22:10 +0100
Message-ID	<20160910221017.226448de@HP-6550b>
In reply to	#50822

On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:31:32 +0200 (CEST)
albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) wrote:

> In article <20160910133738.7385696c@HP-6550b>,
> Jan Coombs  <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >;----------------------------------------------------------
> >Hardware and configuration for Microbit:
> >;----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >  Flashing can be done by just copying
> >  mecrisp-stellaris-microbit.hex into the Microbit which comes
> >  with a mass storage interface.
> 
> Flashing a micro SBC can be a great challenge. Apparently it
> is easy with the Microbit. You may announce that with some
> more emphasis. But what do you mean by "comes with a mass
> storage interface"?

"Your computer should recognise your micro:bit as a new drive."

from:
https://www.microbit.co.uk/device/usb 

> >  Communication is done over P0.24 TX and P0.25 RX, connected
> >  to USB-serial-bridge on debugger section.
> 
> Huh?

Just support data, I should have snipped it. Both these quotes
are from Matthias Koch's Mecrisp Stellaris README file included
in the distribution. 

The web page noted above says that to use the MicroBit I will
need "a PC running Windows 7 of later, or a Mac running OS X 10.6
or later", so I also would probably not choose to work here.

Just flashed Matthias' version of the J1 Forth system into an
FPGA following his instructions.  This system is built entirely
with open-source tools.  Just two command lines: flash FPGA,
launch terminal emulator.   

Jan Coombs. 
--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →

csiph-web

Re: BBC MicroBit has arrived - which Forth in Python is recommended for now?

Contents

#52021

#52022

#52030

#52033

#52034

#52037

#52060

#52061

#52062

#52073

#52094

#52100

#52118

#52119

#53489

#53508

#52098

#52107

#51915

#50828