Jump to content

Talk:Arduino

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheCarch (talk | contribs) at 00:11, 26 September 2023 (OneClickArchived "Reception" to Talk:Arduino/Archive 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I'm not sure why everyone is so "delete happy" about the "External Link" section? The "Further Reading" section is more "out of control" than the external link section. Giving a vague "see WP:EL" is not a good enough reason to delete all the links, seriously! WP:EL doesn't list a maximum number of links that can be in this section, yes it says "small number", but it sure the heck doesn't mean the number is ONE either! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed any of these links here, but I've come here cleaning up after some (single-purpose) accounts/IPs who repeatedly inserted links to a blog site at www.dilabs.co.in/2013/03/ into lots of electronics articles.
At least the following articles were affected (there may be more): Light-emitting diode, Surface-mount technology, Compile, Voltage regulator, Spectrum analyzer, Serial Peripheral Interface Bus, Headphones, Portable media player, Fog, Seven-segment display, Radio-frequency identification, and Display device.
The following articles still contain links to this external site (list may be incomplete): Arduino, Pulse-width modulation, LM317, 78xx (only one of the links inserted there is of a somewhat better quality).
Accounts seen inserting links to this site recently have been: Satwikmishravit, Buntybhai, Vibhutesh, 115.248.50.22 (and by timing there appears to be some connection with account Mr n Mrs as well).
The external articles were often only tangential to our respective articles' subjects. Most of them contained no new information for readers of the WP articles. In several cases I could identify text and pictures as being copied from other related WP articles (sometimes with minor changes), f.e. article on display types is made up almost completely from WP material, including Seven-segment display, Nine-segment display, Nixie tube, Fourteen-segment display, Vane display, and Sixteen-segment display. Finally, these external articles do not provide references and they carry no publishing and authorship info, and they do not seem to exist for a long time - all in all they are of low quality, and therefore IMO do not qualify to be included as external links as per WP:EL. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the post. The reason I got ticked off was this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arduino&diff=549480795&oldid=549460834 I could say more, but I think I already blew off enough steam above.
Thanks for taking care of the www.dilabs.co.in/2013/03/ links. Good job. I did see it added to a couple of articles, but I wasn't aware they were spaming a bunch of articles.
I agree that lots of blogs aren't high enough quality for Wikipedia and they should be axed, but also there are some really good ones with incredible technical details and very good writing. Case in point... I don't know the person that has been doing the Arduino pinouts, but I've noticed lots of people raving with positive reviews of "his" drawings. http://www.pighixxx.com/en/ Those pinout drawings are easy to read and very useful, thus is why I think they should stay in the Arduino article.
I feel that Wikipedia technical articles should include very useful links in the external link section. There is extremely useful high-quality information floating around on the internet and if we don't add that information to the articles, then we should be pointing at good sources.
I try to thin out the obvious low-quality external links, but I probably should be cutting more of the borderline ones.
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a number of engineering and computer articles on my talk page, and when I see a new external link added to one of them I check the user's contribution history. Most of the time I find that this is a new editor and that his only edits have been to spam that same link to dozens of barely related pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, blindly cutting the whole section is certainly not the way to go. As you said, it should be a case-by-case decision. I have no problems if there are ten or more external links, if they really provide useful and possibly unique information that cannot be found elsewhere and cannot be integrated into the article for some reasons. I even have no problems with links to forums or blogs if they add real value and could establish some reputation over the years. That having said I would also axe these two external links:
http://www.dilabs.co.in/2013/03/arduino-sketchprogram-build-process.html
http://robodino.org/resources/arduino
Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section move

The "further reading" section was getting to be quite long, but I didn't want to try to trim it down because it is so useful. I decided to WP:BOLDly move it to List of Arduino boards and compatible systems. Being a fairly long list, that page isn't overwhelmed by a long "further reading" section. Also, anyone who is interested enough to buy books on Arduino will probably also be interested enough to look at our list of Arduino boards. Given the popularity of the Arduino, eventually we may want to create a separate list-of-books page. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andy Dingley and Guy Macon, for WP:SPLITTING out the "List of Arduino boards and compatible systems" into its own article. I suspect that there may be other aspects of Arduino that are already notable enough to support an entire Wikipedia article on that aspect -- analogous to the way several aspects of the IBM PC are notable enough to support several Wikipedia articles -- IBM PC compatible, Influence of the IBM PC on the personal computer market, IBM PC keyboard, etc. --DavidCary (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about Robot?

What about an Arduino Robot? It's available in Maker Shed online. --93.154.131.43 (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source and Open Hardware?

Is the Arduino project still open source and open hardware? There seems to be some question marks on this regarding the latest boards, the Yun and the robot. Mossig (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Arduino website still says it is open source and open hardware.
The Arduino FAQ ( [1] ) says the Arduino hardware is open-source hardware, and the Arduino software is also open-source.
In particular, the official Arduino Yun page ( [2] ) specifically says the "Arduino Yún is open-source hardware! You can build your own board using the following files" with a link to the schematics.
In particular, the official Arduino Robot page ( [3] ) specifically says "The Arduino Robot ... As always with Arduino, every element of the platform – hardware, software and documentation – is freely available and open-source."
Mossig, are there are any WP: reliable sources that question those statements? --DavidCary (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multidisciplinary?

This word sticks out in the first line as being inappropriate as the expected word is "applied" such as in "applied math." In technology, multidisciplinary would refer to applications in the direction of social sciences to link "humanity" to tech. WP is unfortunately weak in this area with its inbred bias against disagreeing POV (which it calls it "trolling") and contiguous exploration (which is thought of as digression and thus invariably dismissed as "off topic," or even "non-authoritative"). "Applied" is the word. --John Bessa (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some just insists on using word which is hard to understand and largely irrelevant to engineer. If you think your word is better/clear/easier to understand, why not, you can change it. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Multidisciplinary" is quite a good word here, and for the Processing programming language too. We do see Arduinos popping up in the humanities, and not just the arts, in a way that has re-united some fields of tech and non-tech that have been very separate for many years. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Multidisciplinary" has no place in an article about the Arduino. That's pretty much common sense and self-explanatory. It's just a misused, 3-dollar word that makes any statement more ambiguous. Just because someone knows a particular word, doesn't mean it should be used. Most of the time, in writing, simpler is better. And I have written many technical documents for NASA and other big DoD firms. Believe me, simpler is better - no matter how complex the topic. At some point a document is either a) Useful, or b) Worthless. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History

Here’s a good source: The Making of Arduino - IEEE Spectrum Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 01:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the chart linked from there showing the history of the Interaction Design Institute Ivrea Prototyping Toolbox is very detailed. --scruss (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have stared to rewrite the history section with the information that was recently published by Hernando Barragán, the creator of Wiring and of which Arduino is based on. (http://arduinohistory.github.io). Please feel free to add more of this interesting information. --Ihatetoregister (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-assembled ?

What exactly does "pre-assembled" mean? It was assembled BEFORE it was assembled? That makes no sense. The boards come assembled or do-it-yourself, the prefix "pre" on "assembled" is grammatically incorrect. 2.97.186.109 (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may be done, but it is a false pedanticism. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/preassemble explains the word. Simply saying "assembled" may or may not tell you if it was pre-assembled. You have to add more words, words longer in fact than the prefix pre-, in order to create the same meaning. And English is not a closed language; any valid combination of root words with prefixes and suffixes are real English words. Even if it was the first time pre-assembled had ever been used, it would be a correct word, not a grammatical error. But in this case, it is a known word that can be looked up. See also: http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/preassemble http://www.thefreedictionary.com/preassemble 76.105.216.34 (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your erudite opinion. I agree. Unfortunately wiki is a haven for actual (as opposed to false) pedants, who will argue interminably about, well, practically, anything. One has to wonder what universe 2.97 lives in never to have heard or understood the expression. Sadly many wiki editors live in similar universes. Greglocock (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Greglocock so much that I wish I could send him a six-pack or at least a box of candy. Cheers. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prices

It seems somewhat foolish to quote prices in the lead, as an example I can get Uno R3 clones for $4.20 including postage this week. Greglocock (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsimic: — I notice that you reverted an edit by an anonymous IP user, removing reference to the "arduino.org" site in the "External links" section. While I believe that "arguino.cc" is still the official site, be aware that there is currently a legal dispute in Italy and in the United States over user of the Arduino name and which entity is the "official" representative of the project. I stumbled onto a very recent article at Hackaday.com that describes the dispute and includes a link to a PDF notice sent out to Arduino distributors. From the comment left by the IP user, I perceive it may have been someone with limited English skills and he was trying to shoehorn information about the dispute into the article, albeit rather ineptly. It may be useful for readers to be informed of this dispute and the dichotomy between arduino.cc and arduino.org. — QuicksilverT @ 14:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! That's a very good point, how about describing that in the article? Seems like a brief description of the dispute might be more usable, if you agree? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source code or not

Hey, Kbrose! Regarding your edit, why do you find that as not being source code? It is a kind of source code excerpt, representing function names in particular, and it's universally common to format such things in a fixed font. Furthermore, regarding your other edit, have you read http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Whichvs.That.html I've referred to earlier? It clearly says that using "that" is the preferred way. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question and comment

1. I see both UNO and Uno on the official website. What is the official name?

2. The software section says programs are written in C or C++. The side table and the introduction also add Java. There is some inconsistency.

3. Can the output pins of any of the Arduino boards like the Uno be used to source voltage and current for something like 5V and 10mA? In other words, can I use a board as a power supply for something like driving LEDs? How accurate and stable is the voltage at the outputs?

ICE77 (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Arduino software is developed in the Arduino's C++-like language. The Arduino IDE though was written in Java (it doesn't support more programming in Java).
The limited (and ugly) Arduino language is one of the biggest limitations on the Arduino, compared to platforms like the Raspberry Pi. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes you can drive LEDs directly off a UNO's pins. I'd imagine the voltage specs would depend a great deal on what you are using to power the board, and who designed and manufactured it. I haven't noticed any problems with voltage stability, there again mine is hooked up a 320 Ah lead acid. Greglocock (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. There is no "defined voltage" at the outputs as such. The output stage is better considered practically as current sources and sinks with a current limit and an impedance. That said, some AVRs can handle up to 40mA, which is several middling-sized red LEDs. Unusually, the sink and source currents are symmetrical.
Read the chip datasheets. The Arduino board doesn't change these output circuits. "Atmel 8-bit AVR Microcontroller with 2/4/8K Bytes In-System Programmable Flash" (PDF). pp. 53, 163.
Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback on questions 2 and 3. Regarding the last question, today I worked on the Arduino UNO/Uno board and I successfully used it to turn on red and green LEDs with 5V and 3.3V.

ICE77 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REMINDER: this isn't a blog or help section for Arduino. See blog on Arduino website or Reddit or some other Arduino blog. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing a Raspberry Pi model B with 17 GPIO pins (and no built-in analog inputs), vs the Arduino Uno with 20 GPIO pins (of which 6 can be used as 10-bit built-in analog inputs), I agree that there are limitations.

1. The book "Arduino Internals" says

Being a proper name, Arduino is always capitalized. The model name Uno is stylized in all capitals only in the logo on the PCB.

-- Dale Wheat[1]

  1. ^ Dale Wheat. "Arduino Internals". p. 2.

If I understand that correctly, only the first letter in each word of the name Arduino Uno should be capitalized, unless one is drawing an artistic logo.

2. There seems to be some confusion between the Arduino IDE (which is software that runs on a PC) and "Arduino programs" (a variety of software that runs on an Arduino). The Arduino IDE includes, among other things, a text editor (written in Java) and the GNU Compiler Collection cross compiler (written in C++). The Arduino IDE runs on top of some operating system such as OSX or Linux.

People write a variety of Arduino programs in pure C, pure C++, or in C++ plus the Arduino libraries -- also called "the Arduino language". Some people use avr-gcc and their favorite text editor ( [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; etc. ), other people use the Arduino IDE, to compile an Arduino program and download it to Arduino hardware. An Arduino program runs "on bare metal" on the 8-bit processor used in most Arduino hardware, without any operating system. My understanding is that there is not yet any Java compiler available that can compile Java programs to run on the 8-bit processors used in most Arduino hardware.

How can we clarify this article to prevent the above confusion between these two kinds of software and the programming language(s) they are written in, the Arduino IDE vs. "Arduino programs" that run on Arduino hardware? --DavidCary (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. David Cary, you and Andy Dingley pretty much laid out the difference between the environment language (Java) and the sketches (C++). I think we could simply add a statement that points that out. Thank you for your input.
By the way, since sketches are written in C++ and run on a virtual machine like Java, how can the IDE interpret C++? Is there an interpreter/compliler? I'm not sure if it's in the article. If it's not, it would be nice add. I'm sorry if my programming skills and jargon are not updated.
ICE77 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, the Arduino IDE includes a compiler: the avr-gcc GNU Compiler Collection cross compiler.
Yes, many people write sketches in C++, and the cross compiler in the Arduino IDE compiles them to raw Atmel AVR machine code, and other parts of the Arduino IDE copy that machine code from the PC over the serial cable to the Arduino hardware -- then the Atmel AVR processor directly executes that machine code. There is no virtual machine in the Arduino hardware.
Neither the Arduino IDE itself nor anything else running on a PC ever runs or interprets the sketches -- in fact, many people are surprised to discover that the sketches they write continue to run on the Arduino hardware long after the Arduino hardware is disconnected from the PC. How can we tweak this article to prevent people from coming away with this common misunderstanding? --DavidCary (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Dale Wheat, thanks for the comment. I just saw your information now for the first time.

2. David Cary, I think it would be nice to have a section that clearly lists in sequence the steps from writing to compiling to execution with information on languages used, where the code is physically stored and so on. Using numbers and notes for each step would really help.

When I first powered up the Arduino UNO/Uno board I noticed that LED 13 was blinking but the board was never used before. I then loaded the sample sketch and I saw that is was just about the same presented in this article. Also, I did not notice any "#define LED_PIN 13" statement but I saw "int led = 13;".

Are you saying that you don't need to write in the Arduino language but that if you type code in C++ the code is still compiled and works anyway?

ICE77 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of Arduino developers still use the board as a cheap mass-produced AVR board, but they no longer treat them as "Arduino". If you use standard AVR development tools (which may be C / C++, but could be other languages too) and you then program the chip directly through ICSP rather than using the Arduino bootloader, then you can use any dev toolchain you wish, so long as it produces AVR code.
It is sometimes hard to say just what an "Arduino" is. The processor is an AVR. The board circuit is little more than an AVR application note. The Arduino board standard pinout and shape isn't always followed, even by many Arduino. All that's really left is the dev environment (which many replace with another editor), the cross-compiler (which is just Gnu gcc) and then the Arduino bootloader, which is pretty minimal.
Many Arduino I've bought have arrived with the blink example already programmed in. Even, oddly, some Arduino Nano that don't even have the LED for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Batteries not included

AFAIK the Uno can run off a 9 V battery (in fact, anything from 7 to 12 V). If so, this should be mentioned in the article as it adds to the versatility of the device. http://www.instructables.com/id/Powering-Arduino-with-a-Battery/ Thanks, Maikel (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't anything special, because technically any board with a DC input is capable of running off batteries, well maybe bigger batteries but technically true. AUX IN range varies from board to board to clone, because different voltage regulators are used. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the 9 vdc addition. Not needed, not unique, adds nothing. I agree with Sbmeirow that this is something virtually any and all processors can do. The operating range of supply voltage is called out in the specs, and it doesn't matter if it's a power supply, car battery or what. It's implied. If you're going to add something to this already confusing article, why not make it something that adds useful information? 98.194.39.86 (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "useful information" is that this isn't a bare processor (which usually have narrowly defined voltage requirements) but it's a board, intended for easy and varied use, and that board design includes a regulator with an unusually wide range for acceptable inputs. Maybe less so today, as other boards have taken the hint, but the Arduino was one of the first to make the board fit all the likely batteries, rather than expecting it to be the other way round. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arduino Zero

Please upload a nice looking photo of the Arduino Zero to Wikimedia Commons. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split article

I propose that we split this article, similar to how it was done for the Raspberry Pi: Raspberry Pi and Raspberry Pi Foundation.

  • 1) HW & SW products (stays in this article).
  • 2) companies and legal mess (move to another article).

If this concept isn't the best way to deal with the legal mess, then we need to reword the intro to be more targeted of the products, and keep the legal mess in a special section.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be addressed! If no one replies, then I'll split it in the coming weeks. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need to split it. The article is not particularly large to warrant that. Kbrose (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have anything to do with size, but instead has to do with FOCUS of the article. Splitting the article similar how it was split on the Raspberry Pi allows most of the company related issues to be pushed into a 2nd article. The "Trademark dispute" can be moved, plus early founder history, including stuff that has been removed from this article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, size is a consideration. The focus is comprehensive, which is good when there is little information written. There is no reason to split when it is not confusing. Trademark disputes are part of the story. Kbrose (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article is slightly confusing weather it's talking about a hardware/software or about a company. One article should be dedicated to the company, its history, legal disputes and management, another to the hardware just like the Arduino Uno page but less specific of a single system. (Actually Arduino Uno could be integrated as one model of the many Arduino hardware boards). The Arduino Uno page links arduino.cc to this page, hence a reader is expeced to read only about the company, sections Hardware and Software are not appropriate here. The first infobox should be Template:Infobox company not appliance. Fra098 (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see Raspberry Pi and Raspberry Pi Foundation. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arduino Simulators

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolve duplication and merge #Software and #Software development sections

#Software section duplicates the scope of Wiring (development platform)#Software and should be merged into #Software development section. -- Cedar101 (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Software section and the term "sketch"

I realize that some software people believe that new "widgets" are invented daily (which is not true at all), but this article should not use the term "sketch" in the Software section. The word "sketch" has no meaning in software development. That term should be removed. If any of my students or employees ever came to me and used the term "sketch" with respect to a software project, they would quickly be shown the door and either be fired, or receive an "F" for the semester. "Sketch" is a marketing buzzword. Plenty of good terms out there already exist, like framework or skeleton or ... whatever. There are many to choose from. The last thing we need is another ambiguous term in computer science. We've got more than enough gimmick terms already thanks to the iPhone and Android and 35+ years of Microsoft marketing teams. The lexicon is already bloated ... please people, don't make it worse. It adds nothing except a new term you'll put on your resume, and then remove 3 to 5 years from now. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the term used within the Arduino community, and is supported by adequate RS. You can call them "punchcards" if you insist, but you're at odds with the rest of the world. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term sketch is defined explicitly in the previous section to Software. If you skim over that, you'll miss it. Therefore I have rewritten the first sentence in the Software section to repeat this definition, for clarity. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Arduino/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


On a quick read, the text of the article looks in pretty good shape. An Earwig check found significant overlaps with https://www.slideshare.net/NamanGautam2/home-automation-system-58772695 (probably an instance of someone else copying us, so not likely to indicate an actual problem) and with https://www.wired.com/2017/04/arduinos-new-ceo-federico-musto-may-fabricated-academic-record/ (we quote from the Wired article and properly mark our text as being a quote, so also not a problem). Otherwise there is no issue with copying.

However, the referencing and reference quality is far from ready for Good Article review. Many references (e.g. all footnotes numbered 33–53) appear to be unreliable (sourced to the Arduino project itself or to blogs) and many sentences and some entire paragraphs have no sources. There is one valid citation-needed tag dating from 2015 that has not been fixed before the nomination, indicating that the editors did not even proofread the article carefully and fix all tagged problems before making this nomination.

So I think this meets the "Immediate failures" criterion of Wikipedia:Good article criteria: "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria" and "It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid". Once all content has been properly sourced to published references, and checked against what those references say, it can be nominated again. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Open sourse

"Arduino is an open source computer hardware and software company, project, and user community that designs and manufactures single-board microcontrollers and microcontroller kits for building digital devices and interactive objects that can sense and control objects in the physical and digital world."

OK, is "Arduino" the name of the stuff that's open-source-able, or the name of a company? The company has to be seen as separate, because even though it can do open-source-able things, it isn't itself open source, or obligated to only be involved in open-source projects. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I belive the core confusion originates to weather this page is talking abount a company (arduino.cc) or an hardware/software family. As discussed in section Split article this page should be split to keep it tidy and relevant. Fra098 (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A similar problem was fixed by splitting into Raspberry Pi and Raspberry Pi Foundation, thus reasonable to do it to Arduino too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N now defined by having articles?

Re: "I hate to do this, but these should be notable examples that have wiki articles"

It's long-established that most lists on WP are there to avoid having to demonstrate notability for each entry. Also, WP:N is still (last time I checked) based on external sources, not WP pages.

So, is this list prune a good thing? I would say not. I'm not against pruning the list to make it the best list for this article, i.e. we should have illustrative articles to show what Arduineaux can and are doing, and we need to guard against the usual WP "Let's add my own favourite thing" problem for all lists. But limiting it to WP:N isn't the best approach for that (a dozen identical dull projects don't make a good showcase, even if they're all Notable) and bluelinked article don't demonstrate Notability much more than unlinked or redlinked articles demonstrate non-notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you draw the line of what types of examples to include or not include, where do you draw the line of what types of things to include or not include, where do you draw the line for how many examples? These types of sections get over run by "hey look at what I did" and "I want to promote my favorite project". If these existed in the external links section, many agressive-deleting editors would've deleted all of them. There's likely more precedence of this type of section being deleted, since I have seen them remove in past years, but I can't remember which articles nor can I remember which WP reason they used. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're here to describe Arduineaux. So the projects should showcase that. They should be competent, completed and (ideally) open-sourced (we can do this purely from open sourced examples, so why use any that aren't?). They should then include the project domains that do really showcase what an Arduino can do. So I'd like to see a high-altitude camera balloon, something wearable, something involving WS2812 / NeoPixel lighting, something with robotics in manufacturing (3D printer controller?), something with small mobile robots, like autonomous robot sumo. Those are just off the top of my head. There are any number of such projects, we don't need to "use what's available", we can choose the ideal ones first and then go out looking. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the externals links in "Arduino Board Pinout Diagrams" lead to pighixxx.com which seems suspicious to me, demanding that notifcations be enabled and some private browser extension be installed. Looks odd. Rob Burbidge (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"LilyPad" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LilyPad. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. fgnievinski (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I've changed the IPA pronunciation guide from /ɑːˈdwiːnoʊ/ to /ɑːrˈdwiːnoʊ/. In non-IPA form, that's from AH-dwee-noh to AR-dwee-noh. There's a comment on this page from 2013 that linked a video, Arduino: The Documentary, that includes several members of the development team pronouncing the word. There are, however, no speakers of British (or Australian or New Zealand) English in the video. I watched a few videos that were in British English, and it was pronounced with the /r/ sound. I considered including the former pronunciation labeled "(UK)", but I don't think it's necessary, as a person who pronounces "argue" without an /r/ sound will know to pronounce "Arduino" the same way. It's the /dwi:/ syllable that readers will want a guide for. Roches (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arduino IDE

I have blanked and redirected Arduino IDE to Arduino#IDE in accordance with the AfD discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Arduino IDE and the unopposed suggestion at talk:Arduino IDE#Redirect to Arduino. Felix QW (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some sort of Syntax page?

Is there a page here that talks about the Syntax?

I think we should add a page for syntax or some books about Arduino teaching about the code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuildersHutGames (talk • contribs) 16:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

garbage collection

Article Garbage collection (computer science)#Limited environments claims that "The Arduino language includes GC as well.". A few people partially agree: "garbage collection is better on the ESPs than on the AVRs (as in, ESPs do garbage collection)". Is that so? DavidCary (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure not. Typically, you avoid using dynamic memory at all, the memory guide advises against it. The guide does not mention garbage collection. This thread [9] goes into dynamic memory issues in detail and one post explicitly says there is no GC.
I've removed the line from the Garbage collection article as it had no source to back it up. --Salix alba (talk): 23:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible

Sub section Legacy IDE:

...Arduino IDE windows compiler supports only Windows 7 or newer OS

What does not even mean?

Even corrected to "the Arduino IDE Windows compiler supports only Windows 7 or a newer OS", it still does not make much sense. E.g., on Windows, does the Arduino IDE now require Windows 7 or later? Why talk about a compiler? Perhaps the process of compilation (enabled by installing and running the IDE) was meant? Or "newer OS", implying something other operating systems than Windows (the intent may or may not be to say something about Windows only).

--Mortense (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arduino&oldid=1177102696"