Bill Welliver wrote:
>It's certainly true that AVR and friends aren't powerful enough to
>run a pike interpreter, but they're also much simpler, smaller and
>also use a fraction of the power that any ARM would use. I'm

Well, I admit you caught me off-guard with the powerusage.
Checked it just now, comparing an ATtiny461A with the MKE05Z8VTG4:
- Running without all peripherals active the ATtiny uses about 3.6mA at 5V and
  8MHz, the ARM uses about 3.5mA at 5V and 12MHz.
- Power down mode ATtiny uses 4uA at 3V, stop mode ARM 1.9uA at 3V.
Doesn't look like ARM is at a disadvantage there.

>surprised that you'd be able to get an ARM for less than an AVR...
>you must have better sources than I.

Well, the ARM ATtiny rival would be this one (8KB Flash, 1KB RAM):
http://nl.farnell.com/freescale-semiconductor/mke04z8vtg4/mcu-32bit-cortex-m0-48mhz-tssop/dp/2409294
I can't come up with any convincing reasons to use an ATtiny instead.

And if you want USB, try MKL26Z128VLH4 (128KB flash, 16KB RAM):
http://nl.farnell.com/jsp/search/productdetail.jsp?sku=2360679

>The chip that they're targeting for this project runs about $12 in
>quantities less than 100 and they're selling the board for about $25.
>ST sells a discovery board using the same chip as the micropython
>developer board, but without the card reader for $14. you can put an
>RTOS like nuttx on it. If Pike ran under that, you might be in
>business without having to resort to a "micro pike".

Well, this time I actually looked for a 1MB flash ARM, and I find
this MK22FN1M0VLL12 (1MB flash, 128KB RAM, EUR 6.50):
http://nl.farnell.com/freescale-semiconductor/mk22fn1m0vll12/mcu-32bit-cortex-m4-120mhz-lqfp/dp/2340534

I'm actually amazed at the low price.  It's about three times the
price for the 128KB version.  Which, admittedly, makes Pike on an
embedded ARM a possibility again.
I just checked out nuttx; looks nice, but judging from the functionality
it probably does require a high enough clockrate to achieve anything
meaningful (and that, sort  of linearly increases power consumption).

Glancing at Pike I notice that:
- The i386 compiled 32 bit binary is roughly 2MB text size and 866KB BSS
  size.
- program.o contains an unexpectedly large BSS segment of 306KB, why?
- cpp.o is 153KB vs. language.o being 131KB.  It is rather unexpected
  that the cpp module is larger than the actual language parser.
  Why don't we use yacc for the preprocessor too; or is it difficult to
  capture the rules in yacc for the preprocessor?
- Which is not say that an embedded Pike could do without the preprocessor,
  and possibly even without the language parser (it would mean that everything
  would need to be precompiled).
-- 
Stephen.
  • Emb... Stephen R. van den Berg
    • ... Stephen R. van den Berg
    • ... Bill Welliver
      • ... Stephen R. van den Berg
        • ... Stephen R. van den Berg
          • ... Bill Welliver
            • ... Stephen R. van den Berg
              • ... Bill Welliver
                • ... Stephen R. van den Berg
                • ... Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum
                • ... Stephen R. van den Berg
                • ... Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum
                • ... Arne Goedeke
                • ... Stephen R. van den Berg
                • ... Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum
                • ... Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum
                • ... Arne Goedeke
                • ... Arne Goedeke
                • ... Arne Goedeke

Reply via email to