Is anyone using the patcher software on a raspberry pi 3?

#21

Brilliant, so that's another I'm going to have to check out, thanks for pointing it out, I've never heard of it before!

It was PICAXE I was thinking of, though I should have said Assembler and not Machine Code (which I believe is basically a more human-readable adaption of machine code).

The PICAXE editor will let you program in BASIC, but will actually output Assembler for the chip. It's a fantastic editor and system, you can even watch, pause, and edit a visual representation of the assembler, memory, and physical pins as your code runs (see the Simulation, Code Explorer, and Memory windows in this screenshot).

image.jpg800x600 178 KB

I remember early on when looking into this stuff, that PICAXE came across as being far more accessible and easier to program than Arduino. Whether that be true or not, I have no idea as yet, but I also noticed that it requires less 'outboard' in a circuit than Arduino does.

The overall impression I get is that Arduino has stolen the spotlight due to its popularity, but PICAXE feels like a more sensibly though-out, less messy system than Arduino. It just feels somehow more 'straight-to-the-point' than Arduino does (but bear in mind I'm making these comments as a noob to both, and don't even own a PICAXE yet).

There's six 'official' manuals for PICAXE, so to anyone who's not used the PICAXE system, this first manual will definitely give you an idea of how powerful and well thought out the PICAXE chip and software is ...

http://www.picaxe.com/docs/picaxe_manual1.pdf

Not hating on Arduino, but I'll be giving the PICAXE system a thorough workout regardless of whether I end up using it in products or not, cause to be honest, the only thing that could tip the scales in favour of the MicroPython board (or Arduino) would be if the largest of the PICAXE chips (the PICAXE-40X2) wasn't powerful enough.

So yup, really love the PICAXE system from what I've seen of it, and haven't even used one yet. I'll be glad when I'm in a position to play with this stuff again, to compare and evaluate it for my needs.

#22

BTW, here's a basic demonstration of a simulation in action, this all happens live, then when you're happy with what you program, I believe the software interprets and converts the program into Assembler before uploading it to the PICAXE chip.

So you get to code in BASIC, an interpeted language, but the PICAXE itself is not interpreting anything because the software interpreted and converted it to Assembler before uploading it to the chip. At least that's how I understand it, the system was designed for ease of use and speed.

As far as I'm aware, I could program in BASIC, the PICAXE software will convert it to Assembler, and when uploaded to the PICAXE itself, that Assembler gets to run at up to 64MHz depending on which PICAXE chip I use - I think it's a bloody good system :sunglasses:

#23

Scrap my rambling, just saw a video from Dave Jones where he mentioned PICAXE, and from what he says, it's interpreted, but he also mentions that it's assembler, so I'm totally confused now, but anyway, if it is interpreted, I suppose it's just a matter of testing these things to see if interpretation at 64MHz is good enough.

... I disagree with him about Assembly programmers being idiots though. I can imagine it's very empowering. And of course, going to the ultimate level of geekery (Machine Code programming) must surely make you a hardware-controlling god of awesomeness :star_struck:

#24

I was originaly a basic programmer since the old days of spagheti programming with numbers, the old basca etc, led me right up to visual basic etc... When I wanted to try working with microcontrollers for the first time, naturaly PICAXE was my first direction, alot has changed since then, for first timmers its alot easier to get into PICAXE then when I first tried. There just wasn't sufficient info and direction available for me to work out how to get started. But by this time Arduino was out so I started reading about it, and I had no issues understanding what I needed to get started, the only issue I had was no experience in C Programming, so I started reading up about it, and to be honest, I found that it realy wasn't that different after all, if statements, loops, and so on, it was mostly just the syntax that was new. And I haven't looked back since. I am not saying you should go the Arduino route, but what I can definately say is that their is tons and tons of examples that you can copy from, ask for help on, every where for begginers to advance level concepts. And now that I have been using it for some time now, I have no interest to try anything new for now unless their is a benifit to do so. And now when I try to do some occaisional VB codding I find it clumsy, so I find that C has taught me to be more accurate and specific with what is happening. And its cheap to, you could get an ESP32 board for about $8, it has more then sufficient memory and speed to do what you want, and can be controlled over WIFI, and there are thousands of code example for free on line to source from.
But the choice is yours.... ps!.. your nuts if you don't at least consider it. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

#25

G'day, mate :grin:

It was similar for me, the first program I made was in BASIC on the Commodore 64, and here it is (slightly modified to give you nightmares):

10 Print "axoman"
20 Goto 10

I looked into the ESP boards suggested by tele_player and yourself, but I prefer the MicroPython board over those. What has me confused is what Dave said in that video, cause first he says that PICAXE uses code that was compiled into the native Assembly language of the PICAXE, and then he says that it's slow due to being interpreted. I just don't understand that at all.

I do understand that when working in the PICAXE programming environment, that you are working in BASIC, and that the simulation you see is a result of the BASIC code being interpreted. But what I don't understand is why, if the BASIC code gets compiled to native PICAXE Assembly language, why the PICAXE itself would be running anything interpreted, if what it is running is native PICAXE Assembly language!

All options are open to me, I'll learn whatever I need to whether it be Arduino, PICAXE, or MicroPython, but that question above really does confuse me, I wish someone would explain that to me. If not, I suppose I'll join their forum and ask when I get to play with the stuff.

Regards me being nuts ... whatever gave you that idea?

Listen mate, ever since my release from the asylum, nurse has checked-up on me once a month without fail. She says I'm getting along fine in society these days. And mate, there's a "bloody" good reason I'm attracted to a product called "PICAXE" :crazy_face:

#26

This whole PICAXE thing really should be its own thread, it's got nothing to do with patcher on Raspberry Pi...

If you like BASIC on a small, slow, 8-bit microncontroller with limited RAM and flash, PICAXE might be just what you need. Fine for flashing some LEDs, reading some switches.

The compiled/interpreted confusion comes from the fact that PICAXE doesn't store the actual BASIC program text on the chip. The BASIC source code is tokenized on the computer, which only reduces the amount of flash needed on the chip. The tokenized program is interpreted on the PICAXE chip.

If you want faster 32-bit microntrollers, there are lots of choices. STM32, Teensy, ESP8266, ESP32, etc.

Another thing to consider is that most of the open source software out there is written in C, C++, Python. Lots of good code to cut and paste, without having to reinvent the wheel.

For somebody learning how to use microcontrollers today, Arduino is a great choice

#27

I agree, and actually I tried to stop it going off-topic way back, but you replied so it would have been rude to not reply back.

Well it looks like the Arduino, Teensy, and MicroPython boards will have to battle it out for my effection!

Thanks all for the insight and heads-up on them. If nothing else, at least it gave me a better understanding of what PICAXE is. I will still take a look at PICAXE though, I really like the system from what I've seen of it; it seems to be a very professional, well thought out system to me.

#28

Time to res this again! I managed to build 2.0 on the raspberry pi 4 and it is good to go. Tried building 1.12 but its calling x86 packages. Can you share your build scripts?

#29

I’m curious why some people are interested in this, could you explain ?

#30

to make a patcher on the road for example, a raspberry pi, a touchscreen, there you go.... hands on control of your synth.

#31

To me, Any screen smaller than a laptop isn’t very useful for Patcher.

#32

also, some people have a pi as primary desktop replacement (with a big screen)