Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #26001 > unrolled thread

£3.60

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi

Contents

  £3.60 Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-01-21 15:49 +0000
    Re: £3.60 Nikolaj Lazic <nlazicBEZ_OVOGA@mudrac.ffzg.hr> - 2021-01-21 17:25 +0000
      Re: £3.60 Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-21 19:39 +0000
        Re: £3.60 Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-21 20:50 +0000
      Re: £3.60 gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-21 20:40 +0000
    Re: £3.60 Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-21 17:21 +0000
      Re: £3.60 gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-21 20:39 +0000
        Re: £3.60 A. Dumas <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2021-01-21 21:51 +0000
          Re: £3.60 gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-21 22:54 +0000
            Re: £3.60 Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-22 01:01 +0000
            Re: £3.60 A. Dumas <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2021-01-22 06:51 +0000
              Re: £3.60 Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-22 09:33 +0000
                Re: £3.60 gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-22 13:22 +0000
                  Re: £3.60 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-22 13:34 +0000
                    Re: £3.60 gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-22 15:03 +0000
                      Re: £3.60 Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2021-01-22 17:19 +0200
                        Re: £3.60 gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-22 15:24 +0000
                          Re: £3.60 Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-22 16:25 +0000
                        Re: £3.60 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-23 19:56 +0000
                          Re: £3.60 Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-23 20:25 +0000
                          Re: £3.60 Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-23 20:31 +0000
                      Re: £3.60 Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-22 15:34 +0000
                      Re: £3.60 Björn Lundin <b.f.lundin@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 17:17 +0100
                        Re: £3.60 Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-22 16:30 +0000
                        Re: Re: £3.60 stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2021-01-22 17:47 +0000
                  Re: £3.60 Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-22 15:00 +0000
                    Re: £3.60 gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-22 15:18 +0000
                      Re: £3.60 Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2021-01-22 16:02 +0000
                    Re: £3.60 Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-22 20:05 +0000
                  Re: £3.60 "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2021-01-22 16:07 +0100
                  Re: Re: £3.60 stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2021-01-22 15:53 +0000
                    Re: £3.60 gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-22 16:17 +0000
                      Re: Re: £3.60 stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2021-01-22 17:25 +0000
                Re: £3.60 Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> - 2021-01-22 22:14 +0000
        Re: ??3.60 Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2021-01-21 22:04 +0000
      Re: £3.60 Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-01-21 21:03 +0000
        Re: £3.60 Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2021-01-22 10:38 +0000
          Re: £3.60 "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2021-01-22 16:13 +0100
            Re: £3.60 Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-01-22 20:04 +0000
              Re: £3.60 "A. Dumas" <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2021-01-22 23:39 +0100
                Re: Re: £3.60 Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-01-23 00:23 +0000
                  Re: £3.60 Folderol <general@musically.me.uk> - 2021-01-24 19:22 +0000
                    Re: £3.60 David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-25 18:46 +0000
              Re: ??3.60 not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2021-01-22 23:18 +0000
        Re: £3.60 ray carter <ray@zianet.com> - 2021-01-23 01:53 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#26001 — £3.60

New Pico Pi for £3.60

<https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/raspberry-pi-pico>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#26003

Dana Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:49:58 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> napis'o:
> New Pico Pi for £3.60
>
><https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/raspberry-pi-pico>

But... it should not be called pi.
People will whink it is like zero... but smaller.
They should've named it something different.

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

#26009

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:25:02 +0000, Nikolaj Lazic wrote:

> Dana Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:49:58 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
> napis'o:
>> New Pico Pi for £3.60
>>
>><https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/raspberry-pi-pico>
> 
> But... it should not be called pi.
> People will whink it is like zero... but smaller.
> They should've named it something different.

Agreed.

However, I've still bought one to experiment with because, unlike PICAXE 
chips, I can program it in C, its already mounted on a small PCB and it 
is slightly cheaper than the equivalent PICAXE I need for my project.

Like the PICAXE, it can also do the things I need without any extra 
circuitry, such as detecting whether a switch is on or off, direct 
control of servos and of speed controllers for brushless electric motors 
(via its PWM outputs).
 


-- 
--  
Martin    | martin at
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org

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

#26013

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 19:39:25 +0000, Martin Gregorie wrote:

> is slightly cheaper than the equivalent PICAXE I need for my project.
>
... should have read 'only around twice the price of the PICAXE M14'

From a first look at the docs, its somewhat better documented, too.
  

-- 
--  
Martin    | martin at
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org

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

#26012

On 21/01/2021 17:25, Nikolaj Lazic wrote:
> Dana Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:49:58 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> napis'o:
>> New Pico Pi for £3.60
>>
>> <https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/raspberry-pi-pico>
>
> But... it should not be called pi.
> People will whink it is like zero... but smaller.
> They should've named it something different.
>

Raspberry Pasty?

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

#26005

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> New Pico Pi for £3.60
> 
> <https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/raspberry-pi-pico>

Hmm, not a real Pi in any sort of way at all, it's a microcontroller
with no OS.  It's only a Pi because it's made by the same company.

-- 
Chris Green
·

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

#26011

On 21/01/2021 17:21, Chris Green wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> New Pico Pi for £3.60
>>
>> <https://www.raspberrypi.org/products/raspberry-pi-pico>
>
> Hmm, not a real Pi in any sort of way at all, it's a microcontroller
> with no OS.  It's only a Pi because it's made by the same company.
>

... and it's a great disappointment to me that it's not a 64-bit processor

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

#26015

gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ... and it's a great disappointment to me that it's not a 64-bit processor

Name one.

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

#26018

On 21/01/2021 21:51, A. Dumas wrote:
> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ... and it's a great disappointment to me that it's not a 64-bit processor
>
> Name one.
>

As the Pi4 is a 64 bit processor, one assumed that all future
developments by that company would be 64 bit.

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

#26019

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 22:54:01 +0000, gareth evans wrote:

> On 21/01/2021 21:51, A. Dumas wrote:
>> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> ... and it's a great disappointment to me that it's not a 64-bit
>>> processor
>>
>> Name one.
>>
>>
> As the Pi4 is a 64 bit processor, one assumed that all future
> developments by that company would be 64 bit.

Why? I see no reason for such an IOT device to need more than 32 bits at 
the outside: it has no embedded OS, is not multi-tasking and doesn't need 
to be, so the only good reason to have more than 16 bits of address space 
is to accommodate the size of modern support libraries - after all its 
designed to allow current C and C++ libraries to be used, and lacking any 
i/o devices faster than USB, its unlikely to be processing large data 
volumes.

I'd say that reducing its power consumption is more important: its 
quiescent state uses around 10 mW - a bit more than some battery driven 
applications where quiescent periods are much longer than bursts of 
activity might be comfortable with. 

It looks interesting to play with anyway, and I'll certainly be 
interested to see how using its FSMs can be used and how they affect code 
size.  



-- 
--  
Martin    | martin at
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org

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

#26022

gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 21/01/2021 21:51, A. Dumas wrote:
>> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> ... and it's a great disappointment to me that it's not a 64-bit processor
>> 
>> Name one.
> 
> As the Pi4 is a 64 bit processor, one assumed that all future
> developments by that company would be 64 bit.

That's a general purpose CPU for use in general purpose computers (like the
Pi 4). This new thing is a microcontroller chip for use in
microcontrollers. There are currently no 64-bit microcontrollers on the
market. I can imagine it one day moving that way, maybe for portable image
recognition stuff? For now, it would be a very, very specialised niche and
that's not Raspberry Pi's aim.

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

#26024

On 22 Jan 2021 06:51:03 GMT
A. Dumas <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:

> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 21/01/2021 21:51, A. Dumas wrote:  
> >> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:  
> >>> ... and it's a great disappointment to me that it's not a 64-bit
> >>> processor  
> >> 
> >> Name one.  
> > 
> > As the Pi4 is a 64 bit processor, one assumed that all future
> > developments by that company would be 64 bit.  
> 
> That's a general purpose CPU for use in general purpose computers
> (like the Pi 4). This new thing is a microcontroller chip for use in
> microcontrollers. There are currently no 64-bit microcontrollers on
> the market. I can imagine it one day moving that way, maybe for
> portable image recognition stuff? For now, it would be a very, very
> specialised niche and that's not Raspberry Pi's aim.

Indeed. I've yet to find a need for more than eight bits in a
microcontroller, along with a maximum of 2KB of RAM. If I need more
power, it's a RPi.

-- 
Joe

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

#26028

On 22/01/2021 09:33, Joe wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2021 06:51:03 GMT
> A. Dumas <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
>
>> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 21/01/2021 21:51, A. Dumas wrote:
>>>> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> ... and it's a great disappointment to me that it's not a 64-bit
>>>>> processor
>>>>
>>>> Name one.
>>>
>>> As the Pi4 is a 64 bit processor, one assumed that all future
>>> developments by that company would be 64 bit.
>>
>> That's a general purpose CPU for use in general purpose computers
>> (like the Pi 4). This new thing is a microcontroller chip for use in
>> microcontrollers. There are currently no 64-bit microcontrollers on
>> the market. I can imagine it one day moving that way, maybe for
>> portable image recognition stuff? For now, it would be a very, very
>> specialised niche and that's not Raspberry Pi's aim.
>
> Indeed. I've yet to find a need for more than eight bits in a
> microcontroller, along with a maximum of 2KB of RAM. If I need more
> power, it's a RPi.
>

It is 50 years ago this year that I cut my teeth on a naked
PDP11/20 with no OS and only an assembler. Everything I did
was up to me.

Over the years I have been involved in real-time OS
development and language interpreters to the extent
that in my retirement I've an N-I-H stance towards
others' software.

I'd like to relive my youth but with the 64-bit instruction
set of the ARM but without being imbrangled in all the
bolt-on (Lancashire?  :-)  ) goodies that the RPi4 has.

I don't have the capability to produce the PCB and
solder down a BGA myself, despite a radio ham's
junk box of nearly 60 years' standing.

In my retirement, I have some ideas on language
development, essentially interactive as was BASIC
and FORTH but running at the speed of compiled
code, and the 64 bit ARM instruction set looks
like a good starter.

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

#26029

On 22/01/2021 13:22, gareth evans wrote:
> In my retirement, I have some ideas on language
> development, essentially interactive as was BASIC
> and FORTH but running at the speed of compiled
> code, and the 64 bit ARM instruction set looks
> like a good starter.

FORTH was good stuff speed wise


-- 
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

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

#26031

On 22/01/2021 13:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 22/01/2021 13:22, gareth evans wrote:
>> In my retirement, I have some ideas on language
>> development, essentially interactive as was BASIC
>> and FORTH but running at the speed of compiled
>> code, and the 64 bit ARM instruction set looks
>> like a good starter.
>
> FORTH was good stuff speed wise
>
>

I never used it in anger, but spent a lot of time thinking
about it. I seem to have on my bookshelf most of the FORTH
and TIL primers. I was considering something like a FORTH
but not being based upon Reverse Polish.

ISTR that FORTH on an RCA 1802 is in the Voyager missions?

Now, that was a weird instruction set! ISTR 8-off 16 bit
registers but no 16-bit moves, all having to be done in
8-bit chunks through the accumulator, and no conventional
subroutine call but change which of the 16-bit registers
at any time was the program counter!

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

#26035

On 22.1.21 17.03, gareth evans wrote:
> On 22/01/2021 13:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 22/01/2021 13:22, gareth evans wrote:
>>> In my retirement, I have some ideas on language
>>> development, essentially interactive as was BASIC
>>> and FORTH but running at the speed of compiled
>>> code, and the 64 bit ARM instruction set looks
>>> like a good starter.
>>
>> FORTH was good stuff speed wise
>>
>>
> 
> I never used it in anger, but spent a lot of time thinking
> about it. I seem to have on my bookshelf most of the FORTH
> and TIL primers. I was considering something like a FORTH
> but not being based upon Reverse Polish.
> 
> ISTR that FORTH on an RCA 1802 is in the Voyager missions?
> 
> Now, that was a weird instruction set! ISTR 8-off 16 bit
> registers but no 16-bit moves, all having to be done in
> 8-bit chunks through the accumulator, and no conventional
> subroutine call but change which of the 16-bit registers
> at any time was the program counter!


FORTH is as much Reverse Polish (Lukasciewicz) as the older
HP calculators.

-- 

-TV

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

#26036

On 22/01/2021 15:19, Tauno Voipio wrote:
> On 22.1.21 17.03, gareth evans wrote:
>> On 22/01/2021 13:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2021 13:22, gareth evans wrote:
>>>> In my retirement, I have some ideas on language
>>>> development, essentially interactive as was BASIC
>>>> and FORTH but running at the speed of compiled
>>>> code, and the 64 bit ARM instruction set looks
>>>> like a good starter.
>>>
>>> FORTH was good stuff speed wise
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I never used it in anger, but spent a lot of time thinking
>> about it. I seem to have on my bookshelf most of the FORTH
>> and TIL primers. I was considering something like a FORTH
>> but not being based upon Reverse Polish.
>>
>> ISTR that FORTH on an RCA 1802 is in the Voyager missions?
>>
>> Now, that was a weird instruction set! ISTR 8-off 16 bit
>> registers but no 16-bit moves, all having to be done in
>> 8-bit chunks through the accumulator, and no conventional
>> subroutine call but change which of the 16-bit registers
>> at any time was the program counter!
>
>
> FORTH is as much Reverse Polish (Lukasciewicz) as the older
> HP calculators.
>

You misunderstood my comment.

Let me rephrase ... I was considering a language without using
reverse polish along the lines of FORTH's interactiveness.

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

#26042

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 15:24:47 +0000, gareth evans wrote:

> On 22/01/2021 15:19, Tauno Voipio wrote:
>> On 22.1.21 17.03, gareth evans wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2021 13:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 22/01/2021 13:22, gareth evans wrote:
>>>>> In my retirement, I have some ideas on language development,
>>>>> essentially interactive as was BASIC and FORTH but running at the
>>>>> speed of compiled code, and the 64 bit ARM instruction set looks
>>>>> like a good starter.
>>>>
>>>> FORTH was good stuff speed wise
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I never used it in anger, but spent a lot of time thinking about it. I
>>> seem to have on my bookshelf most of the FORTH and TIL primers. I was
>>> considering something like a FORTH but not being based upon Reverse
>>> Polish.
>>>
>>> ISTR that FORTH on an RCA 1802 is in the Voyager missions?
>>>
>>> Now, that was a weird instruction set! ISTR 8-off 16 bit registers but
>>> no 16-bit moves, all having to be done in 8-bit chunks through the
>>> accumulator, and no conventional subroutine call but change which of
>>> the 16-bit registers at any time was the program counter!
>>
>>
>> FORTH is as much Reverse Polish (Lukasciewicz) as the older HP
>> calculators.
>>
>>
> You misunderstood my comment.
> 
> Let me rephrase ... I was considering a language without using reverse
> polish along the lines of FORTH's interactiveness.

Have you looked at John von Neumanns's interactive JOSS language or its 
derivatives JEAN (found on ICL 1900s) and FOCAL (on DEC boxes).

It used real line numbers (so if the needed a line between lines 1.1 and 
1.2 you just gave it 1.15 as its line number) and DO PART 3 ran all lines 
with with 3 as the integral part of the line number.

It was easy to write and debug but conditionals couldn't have an ELSE 
branch  because the condition was the last part of the statement:

2.55 A = B * C + D IF q = "yes" 

Speed wasn't bad because I think that, like many basics, the 'run' 
command may gave compiled (or at least tokenised) the program before 
running it, though I don't remember much gap between startind a run and 
getting results. I certainly preferred JEAN to BASIC.



-- 
--  
Martin    | martin at
Gregorie  | gregorie dot org

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

#26053

On 2021-01-22, Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> wrote:

> FORTH is as much Reverse Polish (Lukasciewicz) as the older
> HP calculators.

Forth love if honk then

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  "Some of you may die,
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  but it's a sacrifice
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  I'm willing to make."
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

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

#26054

On 23 Jan 2021 19:56:12 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2021-01-22, Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > FORTH is as much Reverse Polish (Lukasciewicz) as the older
> > HP calculators.
> 
> Forth love if honk then

Yoda strong in the Forth is.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi

csiph-web