Hi!
just some programmer's thoughts:
1.)
could it be that "C++" on Arduino is merely a C interpreter ?
1.)
could it be that "C++" on Arduino is merely a C interpreter ?
So far I never extended a class and never implemented an interface
and I never saw generic types ...
Well, it might be that I am less familiar with C++ on Arduino compared
to C++ on Windows but it it still worth considering that it might not be
a proper and full "C++" compiler.
Well, it might be that I am less familiar with C++ on Arduino compared
to C++ on Windows but it it still worth considering that it might not be
a proper and full "C++" compiler.
2.)
As you said:
"Now after some thought, maybe these folks wouldn't be able
to handle Python either..."
I fully agree with this.
As you said:
"Now after some thought, maybe these folks wouldn't be able
to handle Python either..."
I fully agree with this.
And I think it might be even worse:
Just BECAUSE Python seems to be easier at first glance will
they most probably write less structured code any doing so
they might soon come to a point where source code gets
over-complicated and no longer managable ...
I strongly encourage everybody to first deeply dive into
programming larger projects before deciding what language
is to be preferred.
as I said - just a programmer's thoughts
Gerald
_________________________________________________________________________
<experience comes shortly after it was needed>
Gerald Trost
Software Developer / Programmierer
phone: +43 (0)650 2311057
skype: gerald.trost
https://xing.com/profile/Gerald_Trost
https://linkedin.com/in/gerald-trost-57ba80ab
https://facebook.com/gerald.trost.3
_________________________________________________________________________
<experience comes shortly after it was needed>
Gerald Trost
Software Developer / Programmierer
phone: +43 (0)650 2311057
skype: gerald.trost
https://xing.com/profile/Gerald_Trost
https://linkedin.com/in/gerald-trost-57ba80ab
https://facebook.com/gerald.trost.3
_________________________________________________________________________
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 at 8:04 PM
From: "Nathan McCorkle" <nmz787@gmail.com>
To: diybio <diybio@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DIYbio] Micropython vs C++ for microcontrollers
From: "Nathan McCorkle" <nmz787@gmail.com>
To: diybio <diybio@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [DIYbio] Micropython vs C++ for microcontrollers
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:35 AM Simon Quellen Field <sfield@scitoys.com> wrote:
>
> I don't wish to hijack this thread, so I changed the subject line.
>
> John didn't say why he preferred micropython to C++ (which he called "the arduino language"). But the compactness and speed of C++ code over an interpreted subset of Python gives it a substantial advantage on small processors, where both CPU execution speed and memory space are both limited.
I think the bigger reasoning for choosing Micropython to deploy on
programmable lab gear is the end-users often lack reasonable coding
skills. For example many biologists I knew in my undergrad stuggled
with email and Excel spreadsheets... biologists John and I have tried
interfacing with as beta testers for the open-source electroporator
have struggled with deleting and copying files from a github clone to
a Micropython 'drive'.
So I don't have a sliver of hope that the **average** biologist or
chemist would be able to handle hacking on C++ to automate or alter
lab gear. Now after some thought, maybe these folks wouldn't be able
to handle Python either... but I think there's certainly less barrier
and an easier ramp to climb.
As you said, Micropython itself is written in C++... so performance
really isn't an issue since their documentation provides good examples
of writing C modules for Micropython.
This is exactly what I did to use the DMA feature of the
microcontroller John chose for the culture-shock electroporator, when
I wanted to collect ADC samples from the High-Voltage output while
actively pulsing, and to start working on an automated solution to
voltage-limiting (so the user didn't have to specify the low-level
pulse-width timings, which is unlike any existing electroporation
protocol which just deal with overall time-scale and max voltage).
--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CA%2B82U9JdrkCDpVfguCMc0vh8m8HsApL-VebHr7conZQzfKi8gQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> I don't wish to hijack this thread, so I changed the subject line.
>
> John didn't say why he preferred micropython to C++ (which he called "the arduino language"). But the compactness and speed of C++ code over an interpreted subset of Python gives it a substantial advantage on small processors, where both CPU execution speed and memory space are both limited.
I think the bigger reasoning for choosing Micropython to deploy on
programmable lab gear is the end-users often lack reasonable coding
skills. For example many biologists I knew in my undergrad stuggled
with email and Excel spreadsheets... biologists John and I have tried
interfacing with as beta testers for the open-source electroporator
have struggled with deleting and copying files from a github clone to
a Micropython 'drive'.
So I don't have a sliver of hope that the **average** biologist or
chemist would be able to handle hacking on C++ to automate or alter
lab gear. Now after some thought, maybe these folks wouldn't be able
to handle Python either... but I think there's certainly less barrier
and an easier ramp to climb.
As you said, Micropython itself is written in C++... so performance
really isn't an issue since their documentation provides good examples
of writing C modules for Micropython.
This is exactly what I did to use the DMA feature of the
microcontroller John chose for the culture-shock electroporator, when
I wanted to collect ADC samples from the High-Voltage output while
actively pulsing, and to start working on an automated solution to
voltage-limiting (so the user didn't have to specify the low-level
pulse-width timings, which is unlike any existing electroporation
protocol which just deal with overall time-scale and max voltage).
--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CA%2B82U9JdrkCDpVfguCMc0vh8m8HsApL-VebHr7conZQzfKi8gQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
0 comments:
Post a Comment