3 ms·

so what's your point? people should be buying a reel of one time programmable microcontrollers that you'll have to program in an esoteric language in a propriet

so what's your point? people should be buying a reel of one time programmable microcontrollers that you'll have to program in an esoteric language in a proprietary toolchain and a programmer that costs more than 8 cents? Or put together one of those open hardware programmers themselves? I mean the padauk stuff is not really a very beginner friendly environment, and it's not as cheap to get going once you consider the accessories needed. just buying and re-using an arduino or a knockoff for a couple dollars would probably be better if you wanted to make the case that a microcontroller is a better place to start.

kragen 5y ago
I had several points: 1. For jellybean ICs "less than [US]$1" understates the case by about an order of magnitude; it's less than [US]$⅒. 2. Other ICs mentioned like the CD4017 have ceased to be jellybean parts and have become esoteric specialty parts, but they're still less than US$1, if you can find them. 3. The reason for this is that, as microcontrollers have gotten cheaper and more capable, the range of circuits for which they are a good fit has grown enormously, and in particular covers just about every circuit where you'd use a CD4017. And once you have a microcontroller in your circuit you probably don't need a 4017 or a 555 because you can usually replace them with 1–5 lines of code. 4. Probing line power with a questionable-quality multimeter really is dangerous. Does that clarify? I agree that Arduino is a much more beginner-friendly environment, even more so than quasi-analog DIPs in a breadboard, and also that the programmer hardware for the Padauk μCs is a significant obstacle.