Search results for:

I tried this and it says =undefined after uploading it so I assume it was succesful.

More verbose check:

var success = true;
for (var i=48;i<64;i++) {
  console.log("checking:",i);
  for (var j=0; j < 1024; j+=4) {
    var dataPointer = i * 1024 + j;
    poke32(0x20000000+dataPointer, 0xAAAAAAAA);
    var v = peek32(0x20000000+dataPointer);
    if (v != 0xAAAAAAAA) {
      console.log("Got "+v+" not 0xAAAAAAAA");
      success = false; 
    }
    poke32(0x20000000+dataPointer, 0x55555555);
    var v = peek32(0x20000000+dataPointer);
    if (v != 0x55555555) {
      console.log("Got "+v+" not 0x55555555");
      success = false; 
    }
  }
}

if (success == true) {
  console.log("check was successful");
}

Ah yes, that one is positive as well. Sounds good! :)

I tried the RAM check, it is positive for me too! The second check required a SD card which I dont have lying around at the moment.

@Gordon, Mouser specs:
http://no.mouser.com/ProductDetail/STMicroelectronics/STM32F103RFT6/?qs=2ulep4BJ1ieqSd6x3%252bh%252bmg==

http://no.mouser.com/ProductDetail/STMicroelectronics/STM32F103RGT6/?qs=9CYplWqnH7H2%252bxyt3bktHg==

and the espruino one:
http://no.mouser.com/ProductDetail/STMicroelectronics/STM32F103RCT6/?qs=%252bB84zevwoRA6TYzZIgOIoA==

EDIT: sorry, must be wrong on the mouser site, the datasheets on there say its 72Mhz as well. Nevermind my comment.

The chips you mentioned have a maximum clock speed of 36Mhz, do you overclock these to 72?

If memory space is very tight, I'd happily pay extra for an espruino with one of the bigger chips mentioned in the advanced hack thread. If this all works out, we're planning to buy a lot of espruino's :).

great :) thanks!

There are multiple ways to work around this issue of course. I thought it would be great if all the functions in "normal" javascript would be supported on the espruino to make porting code much easier. I could put a few dozen lines of code at the top of my program to create shift() replace() and object.create() but ideally I shouldn't have to if they are normal javascript functions.

All of these functions caused runtime errors when porting running code from node and chrome to the espruino so I figured I'd mention it :).

Hi all,

It seems there is no implementation for Object.create().

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Object/create

I couldn't find this discussed anywhere, is this on the roadmap or is there a technical reason why this isn't implemented?

Regards,

Alex

Hi All,

I noticed the Array.shift() is missing. It is easily replaced by Array.splice(0,1) but in order for code to work on the espruino exactly as it does on node or chome, it would be a useful addition.

ref: http://www.w3schools.com/jsref/jsref_shift.asp

Regards,

Alex

Hi, I was wondering what the state of the CC3000 support is. We are looking for ways to get the espruino on the internet and since this one has built in support it seems like a great option!

Hi,

there is a broken link in motion sensing lights tutorial: http://www.espruino.com/Motion+Sensing+Lights

its the second reference to the pyroelectric sensor:
"Connect the Pyroelectic sensor as follows:"

First of all, I couldn't agree more with the first two comments. Secondly, I just wanted to clarify something. The RAM contains your variables, since functions and prototypes and objects are variables too, so is all code on the espruino on the RAM? Then when you type save() it saves all those to the flash and loads it back into RAM when called with the onInit()? For my project we won't be using very large arrays of data but we do have a lot of code to run. What exactly is on the flash and what can be stored on the SD card?

Great, I'm glad it all works now :). Its awesome that you're so quick to respond to these, somewhat vaguely phrased issues! 1.62 is going to be awesome!

Thank you very much!

Interestingly, using 1.62 and espruinoCall (the one I started with), the execution time problem seems to be fixed.

Since you fixed the bug, the hasOwnProperty does not work correctly.

agents =

"0":{
    "RPCfunctions":{},
    "init":function () {
  console.log(this.agentName + " added");
},
    "add":..............................
}

message =

{
  "address":"0",
  "origin":"0",
  "UID":"4n22krpnok2",
  "content":{
    "method":"add",
    "params":{"a":71,"b":12},
    "id":"2180qsewake8"
  }
}

agent.hasOwnProperty(message.address) == false

I have the same problem, I see that I deleted a function but not the call (which doenst really do anything). Maybe my 1.61 kept it in namespace when I loaded the version with that function removed? I updated the file on my git. It seems now that my code isnt doing anything.... hmm..

To check, it was running on 1.61. I assume you're running off the 1.62? I'll download it now.

EDIT: it works in nodeJS as well as chrome, I'll get the firmware you mentioned.

that callbacks length is part of the

this.topics[topic] = {agents: { agentId : { callbacks:[]}}, subscriberCount:0};

So that's just an array. I realize codestructure is a bit sloppy, I'm still prototyping ;). I'll try to download the fix you mentioned in the other thread and see if I can get it to run again.

EDIT: ahh you mean the typo.. I tend to mix those up.. let me kick my IDE (not webIDE) :)

This is a really strange one.. It may not be related to call or apply at all. I have added a new file on my git, named espruinoMinimized:
https://github.com/AlexDM0/espruinoEVE/blob/master/espruinoMinimized.js

This is the espruinoCall file but stripped function by function untill the problem is gone. In the espruinoMinimized file, the problem is still present and it can be solved by:

removing:

Eve.prototype.sendOverTransports = function(message) {
  this.receiveMessage(message);
};

and changing 57: this.sendOverTransports(JSON.stringify(message)); to this.receiveMessage(JSON.stringify(message)); effectively cutting out the sendOverTransports function.

OR:
you can clear lines 124,130,133,134,135:

Eve.prototype.alreadyHandledMessage = function(UID) {
  return this.receivedMessages.indexOf(UID) != -1;
};

and the single call to this function on 124.

The functions that are removed HAVE to be used. Functions that are not used do not affect this.

It is funny to note that this only happens when used with the setTimeout().

It looks like after a certain execution time threshold, the setTimeout schedules the next time further away. I tried allocating 250 ms for each function call in the set timeout, ie:

setTimeout(function() { me.sendMessage.apply(me); }, 250);
  setTimeout(function() { me.sendMessage.apply(me); }, 500);
  setTimeout(function() { me.sendMessage.apply(me); }, 750);
  setTimeout(function() { me.sendMessage.apply(me); }, 1000);
  setTimeout(function() { me.sendMessage.apply(me); }, 1250);

but that doesn't fix the problem... Does that shed any light on the issue?

EDIT: naturally, removing the call I mentioned in the OP and the apply mentioned after that also fix the problem. They are on lines 28 and 153.

Great! Thanks!

Hi all,

I have encountered a strange problem regarding indices. I have a small snippet of example code that shows this problem:

var a = {};
var c = {};

var b = "0";

a[b] = "hello world";
c["0"] = "hello moon";

console.log(a[b],a[0],a["0"]);
// output: hello world undefined undefined

console.log(c[b],c[0],c["0"]);
// output: undefined hello moon hello moon

function foo(id) {
 console.log(id,a[id], c[id]);
}

foo(b);
// output: 0 hello world undefined

foo("0");
// output: 0 hello world undefined

I would expect that a[b] and a["0"] would give the same result?

Thanks for all the help so far!

If I upload the code of espruinoCall.js to the espruino, it takes about 15 seconds for all the console.log messages to show up on the webIDE. If I remove the call, it takes less than a second. I also tried to remove the apply's on other places (like 288, apply) and also seems to fix the problem.. Since I'm doing apply on apply on apply, could that run into a recursion problem? I'll try to put this in a small example to see if that could be it.

Also, thank you for the answer on the minify topic ;)

EDIT: throttle did not make a difference. I also don't use minification here.

Hi Gordon,
If the callback is unchanged, there the difference in performance between .call/.apply and directly calling (). In this case the callback is still being sent in both versions and it is also being executed succesfully.

I will try to create a small example that reproduces the problem. Thank you for your patience, I guess I was hoping you had some sort of hardware profiling/debugging tool that could explain why the method of calling a function makes such a difference.

Does the "whitespace only" method also remove comments? I believe I read somewhere that comments slow down the execution speed as well as whitespace.