Talk:BASIC Stamp

Dump the memory of a BASIC Stamp

Is it possible to dump the memory of a BASIC Stamp? (as in: recover the program written to it)

No, it is not feasible to read the program written to the BASIC Stamp. You could remove the EEPROM chip and read that, but you would only get the tokenized program. There is no easy way to convert the tokens back into PBASIC. See Parallax's BASIC Stamp FAQ for more information. Erpingham 13:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison

I've just added the section on comparison of 'raw' PICs with the Stamp. My conclusion is that the Stamp is now obsoleted by the Flash-programmable PICs, providing a generally lower performance at a much higher price. New designers should completely avoid it, and learn to use perhaps a 16F84 natively instead. This conclusion is (I think) supported by the evidence, but is nevertheless very one-sided against the Stamp. Is that an NPOV issue? RichardNeill 07:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is an NPOV issue. It seems rather inappropriate to proselytize people about 'raw' PICs. If you feel it's necessary to mention a 'raw' PIC as an alternative, do so. However, there is no reason to try and convert someone to using 'raw' PICs. This is especially true considering the purpose each serves. BASIC stamps are meant for beginners and hobbyists: People who aren't super fluent in machine or more powerful high level languages. Mention the raw PIC as something that people use in more powerful or advanced applications, but don't make a table of how you think a BASIC stamp sucks.Kakomu 16:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information about how to program the BASIC Stamp

Perhaps we should add a section about how to program the BASIC Stamp. Parallax provides the BASIC Stamp Windows Editor at no monetary cost. They also provide a tokenizer library. Several projects (Bstamp and BSide being the most notable) have been started to use this library on GNU/Linux. Erpingham 19:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BASIC Stamp "clone" compatibility

A citation is needed for the claim that BASIC Stamp "clones" that are pin-compatible are "not necessarily software-compatible." Such a claim seems dubious since the manufacturers of these clones presumably intend them to be used as replacements for BASIC Stamps from Parallax. Indeed, without a citation, this claim sounds almost like somebody (Parallax?) is simply trying to give potential users a vague fear of using clone chips. I intend to remove the claim if no body can find a reference to support it.Superbatfish

You're right, so I removed it. Devil Master (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]