Searching \ for '[EE]Why Arduino became so popular?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=why+arduino+became
Search entire site for: 'Why Arduino became so popular?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE]Why Arduino became so popular?'
2011\11\17@035319 by jana1972

flavicon
face
Hi,
Can anyone explain, why Arduino became so popular?
I think there are many similar products these days

Was Arduino  the first such product at the market?
Did it have a good support?
Was it easy tu use?
Or was there a good support from ATMEL  :-) .
I heard that there was good free C++ cross compiler and the Microchip's good compiler cost a fortune



Or any others reason ?

L

2011\11\17@072843 by Marc Nicholas

picon face


On 2011-11-17, at 3:53 AM, spam_OUTjana1972TakeThisOuTspamcentrum.cz wrote:

{Quote hidden}

One reason is the platform was aimed at people who wouldn't necessarily play with microcontrollers. Artists, musicians, etc.:

- simple boards with sockets for plugging parts directly into or for expansion "shields"
- very simple IDE/compiler

There's a great documentary on Vimeo about the roots. I'll see if I can find it and post a link.

-m

2011\11\17@075432 by Marc Nicholas

picon face
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Marc Nicholas <.....geekythingKILLspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 2011-11-17, at 3:53 AM, jana1972spamKILLspamcentrum.cz wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Can anyone explain, why Arduino became so popular?
> > I think there are many similar products these days
>
<snip>

> There's a great documentary on Vimeo about the roots. I'll see if I can
> find it and post a link.


Here's the documentary I mentioned:

http://vimeo.com/18539129?utm_campaign=avalon1982&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=am6_feedtweet

-

2011\11\17@081624 by PICdude

flavicon
face
Whenever this gets asked (in other places) I don't know why the  answers/debate seem to be about the hardware board.  Perhaps because  they think of the board as the Arduino, when it's really a full  system, which includes the IDE, etc.

IMO it's really the ease of use.  From the start, you extract the  software and it's ready to run.  No lengthy install procedure with  questions asking if you want to install various options, which you  can't answer because you haven't learned what those mean yet, nor what  the consequences of any of the choices would be.  Then there's really  no development environment to learn.  With any other processor, you  have to read through the datasheet to figure out how to set the fuses  and whether CONFIG is really _CONFIG or __CONFIG CONFIG1, etc.  It's  all done for you already.  With the Arduino, it's straight to  programming C/C++.  (This is similar why I veer towards C on Linux  when I need to program anything -- I can write code in a text file and  simply gcc it.  With any of the "modern" compilers there's a lot of  the dev environment to learn before I can see anything work).  Then  there's the thing where examples are "built into" the IDE, so you can  load the blink-LED program, and run it and watch it work, then start  tweaking to learn coding from there.

On the hardware side, the built-in bootloader makes things very  simple, so no need for a programmer, with specific lines to figure out  -- USB is simple enough for anyone to connect.  The board itself is  nothing fancy and lots of PIC or other development boards are better  IMO.  However, the standard for the pluggable shields does make the  interconnections very easy for the non-hardware folks.

To me it's really about being able to get up and running without  having to read tons of stuff first.  For any non-hardware person using  this, it's very simple.

On the not-so-bright side, that IMO is a new problem itself... that  there's a lot of bad designs out there because software people managed  to get things to work without following proper hardware design, and  now other Arduino newbies take that as gospel.  I've had to stop my  robokids from doing things (wiring certain things in certain ways)  they found on the internet and accepted as the right way, because it  was published.

Cheers,
-Neil.


Quoting .....jana1972KILLspamspam.....centrum.cz:

{Quote hidden}

>

2011\11\17@104953 by Mike Hord

picon face
It's easy, yes, but I think it was very much a right-place-right-time thing,
as well.

It just so happens that it was marketed to people who want to make
things beyond the scope of just electronics at a time when making stuff
has become a far more popular past-time than it has been in some time.

Mike H.

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:53 AM, <EraseMEjana1972spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTcentrum.cz> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>

2011\11\17@154013 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
At 01:53 AM 11/17/2011, jana1972spamspam_OUTcentrum.cz wrote:
>Hi,
>Can anyone explain, why Arduino became so popular?
>I think there are many similar products these days
>
>Was Arduino  the first such product at the market?

Nope - Basic Stamp from Parallax was probably the first.  But: its Basic interpreter is completely closed-source and the modules were (and still are) relatively expensive.  Thus was born the PIC Basic Compiler from Melabs, soon followed by the PIC Basic Pro compiler.  That, in turn, led the way to other low-cost compilers from Swordfish, Mikro Electronika, Forrest Electronics, etc.


>Did it have a good support?

Yes - the Parallax Basic Stamp had (and still has) exceptional support.  So do the other PIC-type compilers out there.


>Was it easy tu use?

Yep - the Stamp is even easier to use than Arduino.


>Or was there a good support from ATMEL  :-) .

No - I've regularly heard that Atmel didn't support the Arduino community much at all in the early days.  I don't know if its gotten any better now that Arduino is in the mainstream.


>  I heard that there was good free C++ cross compiler and the
> Microchip's good compiler cost a fortune

My guess as to why the Arduino has become so popular is the combination of three things:

1) A good bootloader

2) A competent compiler that is available for use at zero cost.

3) Someone who had the vision to combine (1) and (2) above into a hobbyist-friendly package such that ordinary people with little electronics or computer skills could still bring their idea to fruition using the Arduino platform.

I truly don't think that the Arduino would have become so popular without either (1) or (2) above.  For me, the Arduino is now filling the place that used to be occupied by the Parallax Basic Stamp.  I *THINK* that's partly because the cost has become so much less than what a Basic Stamp costs.

dwayne

-- Dwayne Reid   <@spam@dwaynerKILLspamspamplanet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 489-3199 voice          (780) 487-6397 fax
http://www.trinity-electronics.com
Custom Electronics Design and Manufacturing

2011\11\17@160516 by John Gardner

picon face
The last (IIRC) firmware revision of Parallax' PIC16CXX programmer
included the ability to load the STAMP1 interpreter AND a pgm into
a PIC16C58...  They then sold the pgmr to TechTools, who buried it.

I thought this would've taken the world by storm if it'd seen the light
of day -  Not only cheap, but 20 MHz '58s were available; screaming
Stamps were a lot of fun.   :)

Jac

2011\11\17@163638 by Jesse Lackey

flavicon
face
Hi - I agree with all the following.  It is the combination of a free, good IDE with low-cost, open-source hardware, and more interest in DIY/art+tech in general in the last 5 years.  When one teaches a "physical computing" class, you definitely don't want to pay per-seat for a C or basic compiler.  Your students don't want to buy it either in order to be able to work at home.  Forget it.

I think arduino succeeded in spite of Atmel, and certainly not because of Atmel.  There is a surface-mount version of arduino because Atmel did not have a DIP version of the microcontroller for more than 6 months.  I will never use Atmel if I have a choice for this reason and other specific problems I've had with their documentation and tools.  They sold fabs in the downturn while microchip held steady (or better) and TI invested.

The reason Atmel was used ... the port of GCC to the AVR architecture way back when.  If the PIC had a good, free C compiler in 2003 the story might have been different.  So that was the critical free tool that was made more user-friendly over time by phys computing instructors etc. etc. and once there are some student projects documented they become the basis of next year's class projects etc. etc. and it snowballs to become the way it is done.

I'm looking forward to the next generation, however that may shake out, there are some ARM and PIC32 contenders but nothing solid.  There are so many things that a little 8-bitter @ 20 MIPS or whatever can do that I think it will be awhile.  In a world of poor students and hobbyists spending "just for fun" money adding $15 to the cost of the main board may be a showstopper.  I predict ... an ARM in the 150Mhz range (M4 with floating point hardware) and not for 3 years or more.  It will almost have to be a DIP package (which may never happen) because everyone wants at least the option to solder up their own arduinos and for newbies SMT is No Way.  If some great stuff can be shown with the M4 supercharged arduino that is clearly impossible on the AVR version it may tip the which-should-I-buy balance and it would take off.

As ever ... success due to low cost, widespread availability/accessibility, and much increased demand by a market that didn't really exist 10 years ago.  Microchip lost because of the lack of a C compiler, the Basic stamp because of a closed system and cost. There's no way they could compete.

The next generation of my LED products will be "arduino compatible", meaning some example code and wiring on how to make the customer's arduino run something that runs my stuff.

Interesting times...
J



Dwayne Reid wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2011\11\17@165356 by John Ferrell

face
flavicon
face
On 11/17/2011 3:53 AM, RemoveMEjana1972TakeThisOuTspamcentrum.cz wrote:
> Hi,
> Can anyone explain, why Arduino became so popular?
> I think there are many similar products these days
>
> Was Arduino  the first such product at the market?
> Did it have a good support?
> Was it easy tu use?
> Or was there a good support from ATMEL  :-) .
>   I heard that there was
> good free C++ cross compiler and the Microchip's good compiler cost a fortune
>
>
>
> Or any others reason ?
>
> L.
The KISS method wherever possible.
Minimum of technobabble.
Easy to install and implement compiler
All info in the open.
Recipe like instructions to specific goals.
Low entry price.



Ponder this:
I noticed on this list this week that some one had problems getting the current MPLAB running.
That sort of problem ought not to occur at this point in time.

The Amateur Radio magazine QEX devoted several paragraphs to installing TI's package for eZdsp.
It seems the instructions are less than straight forward.  I don't want to get involved at this time
trouble shooting another vendors carelessness. I bought it to learn not hack!

Arduino is not a hardware product, a software product or a vendor.
It is an environment that has been too long coming.
Use whatever processor, whatever vendor whatever software you like.
It opens up the embedded world (and maybe more) for Cottage businesses and individuals.

A lot of really neat things are coming together as a result of this new toolbox.
Nothing is new besides the philosophy. The cat is out of the bag...

I hope the PC world is close to a similar change...

-- John Ferrell W8CCW
"The man who complains about the way the
ball bounces is likely to be the one who dropped it."

2011\11\17@171407 by Jim Higgins

flavicon
face

Mr Moderator...  Please add one more vote for a separate Arduino tag

2011\11\17@181024 by doug metzler

picon face
Several groups have gone off and built Arduino physical clones based
on other processors.  There's an ARMduino, a clone that uses the .net
compact framework, I'm sure there are several PICduinos but the
massive failing, to my mind, is that each one requires their native
toolchain.  Not one of them uses the Arduino user interface and not
one of them will compile and flash from within that interface.

In this way these people just don't get it.  It's not about the
hardware, it's about the integration.

I looked at all of them but I won't touch any of them until I can fire
up the Arduino user interface, go to Tools.Board and select the board,
and compile and run on the new processor.

DougM

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Jim Higgins <spamBeGoneHigginsJspamBeGonespamsc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Mr Moderator...  Please add one more vote for a separate Arduino tag
>
>
>

2011\11\17@191640 by Bruce Fleming

picon face

I agree with most of the comments made about the popularity of Arduino, even if I am not very familiar with some of them. There is another reason along the thread of artists and other non-esoteric parties using Arduino; that is Processing. Processing is the one of the languages that Arduino is based on and was made specifically for artists to allow them creative control over their art through programming as opposed to drawing either with a pencil or through a program such as Photoshop or GIMP.

I actually found out about Processing through Arduino and once you see its IDE and the Exhibition site for Processing (http://www.processing.org/exhibition/) you know they are made to work together. The Exhibition link is definitely worth a look.

Bruce
                                         

2011\11\18@002523 by PICdude

flavicon
face
Actually, as I discovered yesterday, it seems the Digilent pic-based  arduino clones (Chipkit) use the same Arduino IDE with some mods to  handle the PIC32 platforms.  They supply it as a complete downloadable  IDE, but from some minor investigation it seems you should just be  able to copy the hardware resource files over to a regular Arduino IDE  and it should work.

Fully agree re: integration being the key feature, so much that most  are very willing to sacrifice some performance for it.

Cheers,
-Neil.



Quoting doug metzler <TakeThisOuTdoug.metzlerEraseMEspamspam_OUTgmail.com>:

{Quote hidden}

>> -

2011\11\25@190321 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Dwayne Reid wrote:

>> Was Arduino  the first such product at the market?
>
> Nope - Basic Stamp from Parallax was probably the first.

And before that there was the BASIC52 board.  Especially in the sense that they were both boards that enjoyed popularity above and beyond what you might expect based on their technical specifications.

In a way, it's a shame that the BASIC Stamp didn't push the price-point.  It always seemed to be like a STAMP-I equiv built into one of the later PICs (using built-in eeprom, etc) would have been a neat product.


>> Was it easy tu use?
> Yep - the Stamp is even easier to use than Arduino.

Well, for DOS users.  I'm not sure that the IDE really kept up with recent modernizations in user interface designs.  It still looks pretty W95-ish to me, and there never were official Mac on Linux versions.  When TI's $4.30 "LaunchPad" came out aimed at being an "Arduino Killer", I laughed at the comparison of the steps needed to upload and run a sample application.  It was ... shocking.

When I first saw Arduino, the immediate "grab" feature was that I could install it on my Mac and start hacking.  None of the usual pain involved...  And I'm not usually much of a Mac bigot, but ... SO easy!


> one more vote for a separate Arduino tag

There *is* an under-utilized [AVR] tag that would easily absorb this...

----

A lot of it is attitude.  In a lot of communities, you become a sort of 2nd class citizen if you're not willing to build the compiler from source, download the 3rd party device programmer support from elsewhere, write your own I2C drivers, and implement a communications protocol, even if all you really wanted to do was read data from some I2C sensor into some PC application.  In Arduino-land, that would go together almost immediately, and get accolades from the community.

----

> I've regularly heard that Atmel didn't support the Arduino
> community much at all in the early days.  I don't know if its gotten
> any better now that Arduino is in the mainstream.

Atmel is supposedly contributing something (expertise?) to the Due (ARM) and Leonardo (native USB) designs.


> 2) A competent compiler that is available for use at zero cost.

It's not just the compiler.  On windows, Arduino installs and makes use of a pretty full set of unix-y software-development utilities (not that they weren't already packaged for "winavr")  All the pieces help.  Compared to ARM and PIC32, the fact that the libraries (avr-libc, gnulib) are also well established and open-source is a big help.  While you can get "compilers" for the 32bit CPUs, the libraries are frequently part of the "proprietary value-add" of the various compiler vendors, and more difficult to resolve.

> Several groups have gone off and built Arduino physical clones based
> on other processors.  There's an ARMduino, a clone that uses the .net
> compact framework, I'm sure there are several PICduinos but the
> massive failing, to my mind, is that each one requires their native
> toolchain.  Not one of them uses the Arduino user interface and not
> one of them will compile and flash from within that interface.

There's a JALuino based on PIC and JAL that attempts to hit similar people.  Sort of.

The PIC32-based "ChipKit" boards use the Arduino IDE; they're pretty cool; the people involved are doing a really good job (IMO; some of the would-be users are less accepting, because among the things that they never had to learn was how different microcontrollers are DIFFERENT.)   They've added the hooks to the IDE to support more different architectures (still all open source), and are wrestling with the library issues that I mentioned.

There are some ARM-based clones that use the IDE (Maple.)

One "problem" at the moment is that the official Arduino IDE maintainers are not being very accepting of changes to the IDE and core libraries.  So the multi-platform changes are ... not there.  Assorted improvements to things are ... not accepted.  There are various developers that are becoming publicly frustrated.  Something is likely to "give" soon, IMO.

Not that watching the mistakes, fixes, and growth of the Arduino project itself isn't entertaining and educational.  A few years ago, they were struggling with "maybe we shouldn't be quite so open"; not publishing the current schematics, being picky about who they allowed to redistribute their hardware, etc.  That was resolved in ways that seemed to make everyone pretty happy about the outcome...  and there are assorted Arduino products that are not so popular (Bluetooth is an expensive flop, I think.  The "nano" is embarrassingly over-priced.  The theoretically advanced USB capabilities of the Uno are under-utilized.)  We'll have to see what happens next.

BillW

2011\11\28@003530 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 8:03 AM, William "Chops" Westfield
<westfwEraseMEspam.....mac.com> wrote:
> ...
> and there are assorted Arduino products that are not so popular (Bluetooth
> is an expensive flop, I think.  The "nano" is embarrassingly over-priced.
> The theoretically advanced USB capabilities of the Uno are under-utilized..)
> We'll have to see what happens next.
>

Why do you think the Uno has really advanced USB capabilities?
Ref: http://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/arduinoBoardUno

I think it is mostly a cost-down from FTDI based USB to Serial Converter
chips, the Atmega 16U2 (or 8U2) is programmed as a USB CDC-ACM
device. You can even say it is a downgrade especially under Windows
since the usbser.sys driver is not as stable as FTDI's driver. For Linux
and Mac OS X, the Uno solution is not bad since it is "driver-free" as
the target OS has the driver built-in. But installation of FTDI driver under
Mac OS X is not that difficult either and I bet it will be more stable than
the Apple CDC-ACM driver.

But you are also right since the Atmega 8u2/16u2 can be programmed
with more advanced firmware so yes in a way it is theoretically more
advanced. The thing is that the target is not the 8u2/16us but the other
Atmega (ATmega328).

-- Xiaofan

2011\11\28@105942 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Nov 27, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> Why do you think the Uno has really advanced USB capabilities?
> Ref: http://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/arduinoBoardUno

Theoretically, there were hints that alternate code would be available for the 8u chip that would enable the Arduino to serve as HID, MIDI, etc, instead of just a serial port.  Most of that never happened.  It's again promised for the new "Leonardo" board (m32u based); we'll see...

BillW


'[EE]Why Arduino became so popular?'
2012\02\06@103111 by John Ferrell
face
flavicon
face
Reviving a thread three months later...
A lot has happened in the Arduino world in three months and there are no signs of slowing down.

The chipKit Max 32 board is on the scene with support in the IDE. A $50 price tag seems a bit much until the board is examined. The tiny work is well beyond my skills. Getting started with the PIC 32 amounts to plugging the board into a USB port, start the IDE (no install needed, it simply runs from an EXE file), select the assigned com port, select the board in the IDE,  and start programming in c.

Blink a led and then attach more hardware as you like to the header strips. It is running. The limitations of the form factor are a factor and the matter of the 3.3 volt digital interface are new to me, but that is the chip, not the environment. Everything you can reach on the chip is done with Sip & Dip connections.

I have not had as much time to work with it as I would like but it looks like a winner to me.  The special needs & resources with different micros do make a certain amount of device selections but in general the environment is a big leap forward in the learning experience.

I hope someone brings up a PIC 18F module before I really need it...

I think my next move is to put my environment on a thumb drive and my project in a box that will fit in my laptop bag! I will back it up to my web space...

On 11/17/2011 6:10 PM, doug metzler wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>> -

2012\02\06@110508 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> The chipKit Max 32 board is on the scene with support in the IDE. A $50
> price tag seems a bit much until the board is examined. The tiny work is
> well beyond my skills. Getting started with the PIC 32 amounts to
> plugging the board into a USB port, start the IDE (no install needed, it
> simply runs from an EXE file), select the assigned com port, select the
> board in the IDE,  and start programming in c.

Is that C as in "C only, no C++"?

--
Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
C++ on uC blog: http://www.voti.nl/erblog

2012\02\06@111347 by RussellMc

face picon face
> Is that C as in "C only, no C++"?


Hopefully :-)


  RM

2012\02\06@115052 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
>>   Is that C as in "C only, no C++"?
> Hopefully :-)

For me: to the contrary! 32-bit chips and C++ (with a few restrictions) are an ideal match.

--
Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu
C++ on uC blog: http://www.voti.nl/erblog

2012\02\06@121530 by John Ferrell

face
flavicon
face
As I understand it, C++ is in there, but you don't have to address that until you are ready...
  I have been actively load shedding several of my volunteer jobs to make more time for me.
I feel a little selfish about that so I will continue with some.



On 2/6/2012 11:04 AM, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> The chipKit Max 32 board is on the scene with support in the IDE. A $50
>> price tag seems a bit much until the board is examined. The tiny work is
>> well beyond my skills. Getting started with the PIC 32 amounts to
>> plugging the board into a USB port, start the IDE (no install needed, it
>> simply runs from an EXE file), select the assigned com port, select the
>> board in the IDE,  and start programming in c.
> Is that C as in "C only, no C++"?
>

-- John Ferrell W8CCW
Be thankful we're not getting all the
government we're paying for. - Will Rogers

2012\02\06@125705 by doug metzler

picon face
Hmmm, looks like they've forked the IDE and are running 023, whilst
the rest of us have moved on to 1.0.  So now they are forever playing
catch-up.  Might it be better for them to develop a script that adds
the necessary files and hooks to an existing IDE installation rather
than forking the entire install...

I also hope they are actively developing code samples for the
functionality that is unique to this board (CAN,  etc.) and somehow
integrating those samples into the main Arduino wiki.

I am intrigued by the speed of the device - may have to give it a look...

Thanks,

DougM

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:31 AM, John Ferrell <RemoveMEjferrell13EraseMEspamEraseMEtriad.rr.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>>> --

2012\02\06@133935 by V G

picon face
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:56 PM, doug metzler <RemoveMEdoug.metzlerTakeThisOuTspamspamgmail.com>wrote:

> Hmmm, looks like they've forked the IDE and are running 023, whilst
> the rest of us have moved on to 1.0.  So now they are forever playing
> catch-up.  Might it be better for them to develop a script that adds
> the necessary files and hooks to an existing IDE installation rather
> than forking the entire install...


That would be a much better idea

2012\02\06@145338 by Neil Cherry

flavicon
face
On 02/06/2012 11:04 AM, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>> The chipKit Max 32 board is on the scene with support in the IDE. A $50
>> price tag seems a bit much until the board is examined. The tiny work is
>> well beyond my skills. Getting started with the PIC 32 amounts to
>> plugging the board into a USB port, start the IDE (no install needed, it
>> simply runs from an EXE file), select the assigned com port, select the
>> board in the IDE,  and start programming in c.
>
> Is that C as in "C only, no C++"?

It uses C/C++, the Arduino is a bit odd but I think that is because
I'm not used to it. A lot seems to be hidden. I'll be using the PIC32
(Chipkit and PIC32-Pinguino) in a short time. At the moment I'm trying
to figure out the read (does it wait or doesn't it?). They say one thing
my test code says another.

I haven't really ventured into the C++ yet.

And to the gentleman who is going to write the scripts: I'd be interested
and willing to test as well. I'm running both 023 (well I installed it)
and 1.0 (which I'm using) for the Arduinos. I'm just trying to make sure
I have a stable base to work with before bending it.

Thanks

-- Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       EraseMEncherryspamspamspamBeGonelinuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummie

2012\02\06@164650 by Chris Roper

picon face
I prefer 023 to 1.0 and MPIDE allows you to compile for both platforms.

I tend to write my code in plain C as it eventually has to be put into
MPLAB for use with a target board, but having access to all the C++ lib's
saves a lot of time if you just want to build and test a block of code
prior to merging it into the main project in MPLAB.


It uses C/C++, the Arduino is a bit odd but I think that is because
{Quote hidden}

>

2012\02\07@231143 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 6, 2012, at 9:56 AM, doug metzler wrote:

> looks like they've forked the IDE and are running 023, whilst
> the rest of us have moved on to 1.0.  So now they are forever playing
> catch-up.  Might it be better for them to develop a script that adds
> the necessary files and hooks to an existing IDE installation rather
> than forking the entire install...

Actually, the world is a bit divided on the 1.0 idea.  There is a significant population of "it's not backward with my old, random, unsupported, weird, library that I'm totally dependent on, so I'm staying with 0023!

Also, the Arduino development team has said that they WILL be using the multi-architecture model developed by the ChipKit folks in the version of the IDE that supports their ARM-based boards (should it ever show up for real, I guess.)  So there is stuff that needs to go both ways, and it looks like it is.

I don't think a script/patch-based distribution of the chipKit IDE is practical.  There were too many core changes needed to move things from single-architecture to multi-architecture support.


> I also hope they are actively developing code samples for the
> functionality that is unique to this board (CAN,  etc.) and somehow
> integrating those samples into the main Arduino wiki.

Alas, the Arduino community doesn't seem terribly interested.  Arduino is not such a great thing for chip vendors, since one of its "features" is that it hides the details of one chip's "features" from the users...

What it is really nice for, is to have a set of "known mostly working" core software that you can put "around" the code that you're actually working on.  If you want to write CAN support, you don't need to struggle with figuring out how to write debug messages to the async uart...

BillW

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2012 , 2013 only
- Today
- New search...