Bridge-uino interested?

@ taylorza - you code, and I’ll make you one :wink:

2 Likes

@ Justin - I knew I could count on you… Thanks! The most prolific module builder of our time.

@ Justin @ Taylorza I want this to happen so bad you wouldn’t believe :-). Then I wouldn’t have to go through making this attiny work, I could stick with Visual Studio and .Net that I love, I could do my home automation project within my budget and be smiling all the while… I’d vote for you for World presidents.

Time to make a cunning plan then… :smiley:

@ harleydk - Unfortunately the DL40 is back to native code and I haven’t seen a Cortex M0 that has more that 128K flash and 8K ram, so no space for NetMF.

Pinky: “Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?”
The Brain: “The same thing we do every night, Pinky—try to take over the world!”

2 Likes

lol

The Arduino board that turned the world upside down was already released: Arduino Due.

I agree that the Due is a major upgrade to the previous options but a 32bit 84 Mhz board is hardly Earth changing. Besides, IMO, they made a terrible form factor even worse by simply making it bigger and not 100% compatible with the previous. There’s still LOTS of room for improvement.

@ godefroi - have one yet? Curious to see what positives and negatives you may experience using it.

It’s pretty dang Earth-changing from the Arduino perspective. Going from 8-bit 16-MHz MCUs with few I/Os and peripherals to a Cortex-M3 at 84 MHz is not a small change. I completely agree on the form factor, though, and the other implementation choices they made. The wonky way they do the serial link is the cause of much pain in the Arduino world. The need on the Due for a whole separate MCU (for programming purposes?) is extremely odd to me.

No, I don’t, and I wouldn’t buy one. If I were to do anything that my NETMF boards couldn’t handle, I’d go bare-metal on an ST MCU. The Due is extremely expensive, IMO, for a board with significantly less power and significantly less functionality than one of the F*-Discovery boards. I have an F4-Discovery and an F0-Discovery that I’ve been working with, and they’re incredibly powerful. Now that ST has announced an F0 in a TSSOP package, I don’t think I’d have any reason to look for anything smaller.

You may think I’m against you, Gus, but I’m not. I’ve made you several sales.

[quote=“godefroi”]

It’s pretty dang Earth-changing from the Arduino perspective. Going from 8-bit 16-MHz MCUs with few I/Os and peripherals to a Cortex-M3 at 84 MHz is not a small change. I completely agree on the form factor, though, and the other implementation choices they made.[/quote]

Well the Arduino has had different form factors eventually (Ardweeny and that Kickstarter project). The port to the M3 is the game changer imo. The Arduino as a RTOS has had advantages over TinyCLR based systems. In those areas, this improves upon it, imo.

That said, it doesn’t make me want to change to that platform. Smaller and cheaper that Arduino does interest me though.

** edit:

For example a friend wants me add a servo to his ComicCon outfit. Any NETMF, to me, is overkill, either in size (except Cerb40) or price. I’m looking a PICAXE for this, as it’s easy enough to learn, cheap and small form factor.

This topic started out as a discussion of porting the Arduino library to .NET or developing Arduino drivers for Gadgeteer modules. It has deteriorated into a discussion of Gadgeteer versus Arduino.

I have said this before “it is the craftsman not the tool”. Arduino has its place as does .NET. I consider both to part of my toolkit.

If anyone has a problem with their preference, I would be glad to discuss your issues. For 5 cents.

@ Mike - Agree.

So back on topic, which is not a comparison of tools but creating a “bridge” between them. This “bridge” can be documentation, code, tutorials or whatever helps.

With the good feedback we got on the thread, we will get the ball rolling and then the community can help if interested. At least next time you guys see a new arduino section on forum or any other related work, there is no confusion.

http://www.tinyclr.com/forum/topic?id=10431&page=1#msg105468

I like their approach, which may benefit GHI where applicable as they are looking to extend their reach into Arduino h/w world, of making the modules with both Gadgeteer and “direct” (PTH?) access to the modules.

The response may be that an extender or the like could be used … but that’s additional cost, parts, etc that the Arduino user would need for each project (assuming that the extender was permanently part of another project).

I agree. It makes a lot of sense to add breakout pads to every module. In fact, thanks for mentioning it. I’m going to add that tonight for a module I have in the works.

+1K for PTH breakouts. All these lovely modules, I can only plug 2 into my shiny Cobra II. For now I’ll be returning to Sparkfun for some parts as I build out the Mark II NETMF PC.

Im going to revise my modules to break out the pins, as Ian says it makes a lot of sense. I will start with a rev 2 of the DSLR module.

Awesome. It is good that you guys are thinking about adding standard headers to the modules. This makes them more versatile. I am working with a non-NETMF board right now and my investment in modules may have got better use with 2.45mm headers. I am working around this by using an extender module.

This is the breakout I ended up adding to my module. It means making the board a little wider and the socket a little farther from the edge. Neither of which I’m happy about but I couldn’t decide on a better solution. I really don’t like multiple rows unless absolutely necessary. I think it would be nice if we could come up with a common style to use. Thoughts? Ideas for improvements?

(my module doesn’t require +5V which is why I didn’t break it out.)