Popular Science has become just another push for the Arduino....
Microcontrolled
Posts: 2,461
With all the talk about the Arduino VS Parallax, I just had to post this.
I got a Popular Science magazine in the mail today, and I went straight to my favorite part, the "How 2.0" section in the back, and after reading about some cool outrageous projects, I found an article written about "getting started with microcontrollers". I knew it was coming, but I had to read it anyway. Sure enough, after building up micros to the top, they say the dreaded word. Arduino. And yes, they loaded it on about what a wonderful microcontroller it is. And I quote; "One of the great things about Arduinos is that you can draw from the wealth of advice. project examples, and other resources published by users worldwide. " Where do we fall short of this?
HOWEVER, he did mention at the end of the article that when the features run slim, there are bigger micros out there that can take a lot more, which is better then anything MAKE has ever said.
My point is, unlike non-consumer electronics magazines, Popular Science reaches out to those who have most likely never heard of microcontrollers before other than the magical chip that makes things work. I know personally that if I had read this Popular Science article 6 years ago (rather then spotting the Basic Stamp in a Radio Shack catalog), I would most likely be basking in Arduina right now, and would probably know a lot less then I do after using nothing but the Prop for 4 years.
I got a Popular Science magazine in the mail today, and I went straight to my favorite part, the "How 2.0" section in the back, and after reading about some cool outrageous projects, I found an article written about "getting started with microcontrollers". I knew it was coming, but I had to read it anyway. Sure enough, after building up micros to the top, they say the dreaded word. Arduino. And yes, they loaded it on about what a wonderful microcontroller it is. And I quote; "One of the great things about Arduinos is that you can draw from the wealth of advice. project examples, and other resources published by users worldwide. " Where do we fall short of this?
HOWEVER, he did mention at the end of the article that when the features run slim, there are bigger micros out there that can take a lot more, which is better then anything MAKE has ever said.
My point is, unlike non-consumer electronics magazines, Popular Science reaches out to those who have most likely never heard of microcontrollers before other than the magical chip that makes things work. I know personally that if I had read this Popular Science article 6 years ago (rather then spotting the Basic Stamp in a Radio Shack catalog), I would most likely be basking in Arduina right now, and would probably know a lot less then I do after using nothing but the Prop for 4 years.
Comments
As long as people are using them. The more people that get involved at some level in making things with this stuff, the better.
Once someone gets started, if they really get into it they will see the other options. There's no reason to restrict anyone to just one.
For an article trying to get people going, the last thing you really want to do is throw all the options at them. Let them get their feet wet and then see where it leads them. I haven't seen the article, by the way. I stopped reading Popular Science a long, long time ago (not meant as a negative statement toward Popular Science, just a statement about me).
If you did know less after using the Arduino (or something else) for 4 years, that would be your fault, not the Arduino's. And if you did learn anything using the Propeller for 4 years, it's because you made the effort to learn, not because the Propeller mystically bestowed knowledge upon you.
If you really want to learn something here, learn this... the world isn't as black and white as the Arduino/Propeller debate makes it out to be.
The fact the official Propellor software only works on Windows is a BIG turn off for many - there's no justification for this, Arduino got this right. BST is, fortunately, good enough (though I suspect this wasn't the case a few years ago - I get occasional UI freezes
Having done a few things with the Propeller now I can see the appeal of its powerful hardware and the cog model - in fact I'm having fun programming in assembler (for the first time in years since programming Z80's!). But it won't ever become as mainstream as the Arduino because it has a steeper learning curve and Arduino got there first. I've yet to try the C compilers that are out there (still no gcc/g++ ?).
Has anyone looked into adding Propeller support in the Arduino framework? A sort of parallel big brother to the AVR chips they currently support? Requires gcc/g++ support I guess.
I'm sorry, but that just seems like a silly statement to me. The Arduino enviroment isn't that different from any other IDE compiler. You are pretty much saying that anyone who uses an IDE or compiler is not really programming.
At worst, I guess you could say that the Arduino environment is just a lot of macros.
Again, you're wrong. Look, sorry to be blunt with you. I know that you like the Propeller, and in all honesty, you've done more with it than I have. That's not the point.
How is it that you would have developed a less practical skillset? You would need to develop the same skills to use pretty much any microcontroller - a mix of electronics and programming. Some things would have been microcontroller specific, for any micro. FWIW, this is the same practical skillset taught in the WaM kit.
What exactly is a "development" processor? The Arduino module is no different than a Propeller board, other than which microcontroller is installed. Both contain a microcontroller with supporting circuitry, both are programmed with a supplied development environment, both have access to a collection of software libraries, and neither force you to use those libraries. Each microcontroller can do something that the other can't, which is okay, because that's how they were designed.
So why all the angst about the Arduino? Why not keep it in the family and start bashing the Basic Stamp & those users instead? Clearly it's not in the same league as the Propeller. It's not even in the same league as the Arduino. I don't know, maybe instead of getting all worked up over the Arduino, people would just accept that some people have different preferences, and leave it at that.
It is just business. If you were on the job and your boss told you to use a different processor, would you tell your boss "no"? That is basically how I'm going to look at these debates for now on.
Yes, people can make much cheaper projects in many cases by using
a bare AVR without the Arduino board. Arduino is costly overkill for most
projects.\
Better to spend 35.00USD and buy an AVR programmer so you can use
bare chips than spend the same on an Arduino.
I don't think Parallax was playing wannabe when they developed the prop, Chip had some really neat ideas and made it happen.
Find ways to make use of what was created, focus on it's strengths, don't sit around and mope because something else is in the spotlight that you think the prop should be in.
C.W.
sorry micro-controller...is that better