Comment by pingswept | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pingswept | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

For embedded programming (twiddling digital I/O, motor control, and the like), I think the Arduino and the Basic Stamp are comparable in ease of use, or at least in the same ballpark. I've used both; I'm not just making this up.

On the other hand, you're entirely right about Ethernet connectivity. Making a Basic Stamp tweet is somewhere between nontrivial and impossible.

Still, I don't think that the Arduino is miles ahead of its competitors. It's definitely sweet for small projects with limited I/O, storage, and bandwidth requirements. There are lots of embedded Ethernet boards that offer comparable performance/price ratios. To me, the Arduino seems slightly ahead in ease of use for beginners, but that's about it.

(Edit:) As competitors, I'd offer:

  http://makezine.com/controller/
  http://www.rabbit.com/products/
  http://www.gumstix.com/store/catalog/index.php
  http://www.embeddedarm.com/products/index.php

They're all harder to use than an Arduino, but I think they win on performance/price. And they're not that hard to use. The Make controller, in particular, is quite easy.

These boards are not as much competitors to the Arduino, they are upgrades. And they're quite hard to use if you've never done any electronics. Which is why you'll see everyone start with Arduino and then eventually move up.

Besides, if someone's going to fry their first board (and they will), it should probably cost $30, not $100+ The $30 price point is a major bonus that overrides performance/price.

* or one can replace the processor for <$5

Dead on. Also, the main point when you're getting started with physical computing is not the processor, but the actual hardware you can plug into it, the LEDs, buttons, motors, thermistors, etc. One of the Arduino's really big advantages for beginners is that it is relatively "transparent" in terms of cognitive, cost, and setup overhead in this regard. It gets you to actually plugging things into it and seeing them blink the fastest and cheapest by an order of magnitude.

Those are all cool boards, but they are dramatically more expensive 3-10x and harder to get started with. I've used BASIC Stamp as well and so am not "making this up either". When I was first getting started with physical computing stuff, I tried to use BASIC Stamp and ran into quite a large number of difficulties. While the BASIC language is relatively straightforward, the installation/first run story is full of bad pitfalls. And BASIC Stamp also forces you to know a lot more about [edit: PIC not AVR] architecture in order to accomplish the basic things. Again, these obstacles aren't that big for programmers/more experienced EE-types, but for regular people they are deal breakers.

Sorry-- I didn't mean to imply that you were making anything up. I was saying that I was speaking from experience.

By performance/price, I mean the ratio of performance to price. You're right that the boards I cite are 3-10x more expensive, but they're also more powerful by a similar factor.

When did Parallax switch to the AVR architecture? Last time I used a Basic Stamp, it was a PIC.

Oops, you're right it is a PIC not an AVR. Just a typo/brain-o on my part (I've corrected it in my above comment, thanks). Obviously there are steps up from the Arduino in terms of power. Just like there were "real" Unix-caliber mainframe systems available in 1975 when the Altair launched. and likewise, the Arduino-compatible boards are getting more powerful every day, cf the new Arduino Mega as well as the Illuminato. The core of my argument is of the "there's always room at the bottom" type. Without a smooth newbie-to-expert curve, the existence of more powerful and flexible systems is just a frustration to users who are locked out of the whole domain for lack of a starting point. I don't think the Arduino is the Last Word in Physical Computing, I think that for a large class of people what's important about it is that it's the first word.

I guess it's all a matter of degree, but to me, the Arduino is less like the Altair, which was not very widely distributed compared to similar computers sold in later years, and more like the Apple II-- a great product, widely distributed, but not the first of a kind. I'd say the PIC 16F84 and a Picstart programmer are more like the Altair than the Arduino is.

I do agree, though, that having entry-level boards that are easy to use is a huge step up for the large class of people you mention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com