a hobby class on microcontrollers
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: STUDIOT::Re: low-power-cons, low-cost, uP+DSP combo for H.264 videoencoding & control/monitor application
Next: Multimeter Clock – Styled after the Simpson 260 Multimeter
From: Jon Kirwan on 29 Jun 2010 04:09 On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:28:43 -0700 (PDT), -jg <jim.granville(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 29, 8:09�am, Jon Kirwan <j...(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >>�The TI $4.30 kit >> probably does meet it, but I'd have to go back and look and >> I'm too lazy right this minute. > >that does look very impressive teaching/price ratio. Hehe. It's incredible. And I just went out and bought up all the pieces from another store (a haul of 72 boxes.) So that brings up my supplies. It also provided some new kits I hadn't even seen before as well as flushing me out with the better kits (some are better than others to snarf up.) >> The hurdle I find myself mostly facing, right now, is how to >> make this fun for the widest variety of people. �There is no >> way I can start out saying, "To make this motor work, use PWM >> and a varying duty cycle." �Not for many of them, anyway! >> They can be asked to say "Type in 'MOVE FORWARD'" or >> something like that, though. > >perhaps this ? >http://www.rowley.co.uk/msp430/basic.htm > ( tho it is a bit primitive ) Paul has talked to me about his BASIC before and has always been very generous with his time _and_ money. If I decide to press on with something BASIC-like and if I feel I get stuck or might need a little help, I would probably let him know and see if he might have a thought or two to add. I wouldn't expect anything, but I know he has a LOT of interests and he might have something useful at his fingertips to offer. >- and I would add some functional targets too: > >** Able to Source Step-Simulate on a PC > So students do not need a target, to develop Hmm. I have to think about this. Part of what I'd like to do is allow the students to choose their own directions. Some might want to blink lights, others might have a very specific project in mind that I'd need to help them realize (or lower their sights a bit so they could realize it.) Making a PC simulation for an "unknown" would be tricky. I'd like to let them use their imagination and then see if I can pick up that idea and help them through it. So I will have to think hard about this possibility to see if I can manage something useful. My first blush on this is that I can't. But maybe. >** Able to Source Step-debug on the target > The better this is, the less item 1 matters. Oh, yes. This is essential. BASIC statements without line numbers would need to execute right away, I suppose. Something like that. >** Able to operate on a Flash Drive > So they can work on any PC The TI $4.30 system ties into the PC, as well. I don't know any of its details -- haven't got one yet -- but I'm hopeful. But yes, USB access to a PC is important. Jon
From: Jon Kirwan on 29 Jun 2010 04:13 On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:53:48 -0700 (PDT), -jg <jim.granville(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 29, 9:28�am, -jg <jim.granvi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> perhaps this ?http://www.rowley.co.uk/msp430/basic.htm >> �( tho it is a bit primitive ) > >Just thinking some more about this, and that line# basic might be too >much low-level work to bring into usable form. esp Debug wise. > >An alternative path, could be to spin a variant of >something like this ? > >http://sourceforge.net/projects/bcx-basic/ > > This is a Basic to C - so you'd massage that, to allow a PC-Choice- >Basic to >debug at original source code, and also massage the C output, to >have the original Basic lines as prefix comments so then the file will >correctly Step debug on any C-Flow system, but look like Basic to a >novice. > It also lest them see C, on a read-only basis. (initially) >This is also quite Core-Agnostic, and PC testable too. > >ASM could probably also be supported, on a relatively simple pass-thru >to any C compiler supporting in-line asm. This is all up in the air for me, right now. I'm also considering something along the lines of Lego's dev semantics or ZZT (it's a game thing) like approach. Also, Paul has mentioned XMOS' XC language, which has some tempting syntax and semantics, as well. I think there are lots of examples to draw from. I need to read and let it simmer for a bit. Jon
From: Jon Kirwan on 29 Jun 2010 04:24 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:12:20 +0200, David Brown <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: ><snip> >Maybe it's a culture difference, but I just don't understand the concept >of someone who is planning to spend significant time learning a new >hobby, but is unwilling to spend more than the price of a CD or a couple >of beers for the required equipment. ><snip> It may be a cultural difference. But your mistake in the above is that you are assuming the students are "planning to spend significant time learning a new hobby." Jon
From: David Brown on 29 Jun 2010 05:44 On 29/06/2010 10:24, Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:12:20 +0200, David Brown > <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: > >> <snip> >> Maybe it's a culture difference, but I just don't understand the concept >> of someone who is planning to spend significant time learning a new >> hobby, but is unwilling to spend more than the price of a CD or a couple >> of beers for the required equipment. >> <snip> > > It may be a cultural difference. > > But your mistake in the above is that you are assuming the > students are "planning to spend significant time learning a > new hobby." > How many classes are they going to, and how long are these classes? If you are only talking about a few hours total, then presumably the kits are not "consumables" but will be used in class. Avoid anything involving solder or permanent changes to the kits, and they will be re-usable from group to group. That way you can afford more per kit since it will be used by more people. Also consider sharing kits amongst pairs or groups of students. It could make the class more fun, and again give you a higher budget per kit.
From: Hans-Bernhard Bröker on 29 Jun 2010 06:18
Am 29.06.2010 01:43, schrieb Gary Peek: > I'm not sure what "dead parrot" means, but for a hobby board (or any > board that someone will be "experimenting" with) having the chips in > sockets is an advantage come repair time. It's an advantage only if you can get the chips you need in that format. Which basically you can't anymore, for just about any of the interesting chips, because nobody is making them any more. And if they do, they cost extra just for being in that form factor. I'd even point out that making the CPU too easy to exchange is a pedagocically bad idea. The extra work to exchange a soldered-in CPU (fingers occasionally burned on the soldering iron included) motivates students to _think_ --- and do to it _before_ they connect stuff to a part that'll take an hour to replace before they can go on. Socketed parts are necessary only if they have to be dismounted as part of regular operation (e.g. to burn code into them off-board). In most other situations, they indirectly teach carelessness. |