9

Proposal: Arduino

Maybe it's a good idea to also discuss the variants of Arduino like Netduino, Panda, Gadgeteer and others.

6

Here is one view:

  • The Arduino proposal ought to support any development board or platform that works with the Arduino IDE, the Arduino libraries (functions documented on Arduino.cc) and one of the Arduino compatible bootloaders.
  • The Arduino proposal ought to support not just the classic Arduino shield form-factor, but any others used by any board documented on Arduino.cc (such as the Mega, the Pro Mini, the Pro Micro, the Nano...).
  • The Arduino proposal should not be diluted to any and all microcontroller development boards: What does the MicroSoft .net micro platform (and variants) have in common with the Arduino, other than a board called the NetDuino so named to take advantage of the 'duino brand recongnition?
  • Should the Arduino proposal also support Energia compatible boards? Energia is pretty much the Arduino IDE without the name, uses the same libraries and documented functionality, but does not require the Arduino bootloader. An example is the Texas Instruments Stellaris Launchpad - well-supported by Energia, and many existing Arduino sketches port over trivially. I'm a bit on the fence on this one.

So where do the other microcontroller boards belong? Well, there is the Electronics SE, of course, but there is also the Embedded Programming proposal. That latter is clearly spawned of a feeling that EE.SE isn't ideal for its target group.

If the Arduino proposal were to be diluted to include boards with little in common with the Arduino family, then any dev board or device that incorporates a microcontroller is fair game, and in which case the Arduino proposal isn't about Arduino or its global and very lively community (as it exists independent of StackExchange) any more.

  • I would go with points 1 2 3 being correct and point 4 being in favour of the disallowing the Energia boards. More specifically I would say it requires the arduino boot loader as such making it completely arduino compatible board. Anything else no matter how similar is going down the route of more generic microcontroller/embedded controller platforms. – Dave Mar 5 '13 at 16:59
  • @Dave Fair observation: Like I said, I'm a fence-sitter on that one, for now. – Anindo Ghosh Mar 5 '13 at 18:18
1

The site scope will/should include all Arduino clones and derivatives that are not too different from the overall platform.

I am not familiar with Panda and Gadgeteer but they appear to be significantly different platforms.

*Everything listed on Arduino.cc will be in scope, which also means Arduino Due and its derivatives will be in scope. However, I do not think we should extend the scope beyond that.

  • 2
    How would this sit with the arduino due though which is arm based too. Should we not be considering the scope to be anything provided by arduino.cc or a clone/derivitive of its cores. This could potentially include ARM based devices but only those based off the Due. – Dave Mar 5 '13 at 13:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .