• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Sheriffs:
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
Saloon Keepers:
  • Jesse Silverman
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Carey Brown
  • Tim Holloway
Bartenders:
  • Jj Roberts
  • Al Hobbs
  • Piet Souris

Arduino + pc OR combo (on 1 board)

 
Greenhorn
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Martin, Joshua & Jordan,

For real-world projects, 'am trying to figure out which option to choose from the options below:

Option 1: Get an Arduino board (say, Due) + an ARM SoC-based mini PC like say the Pi/linux-stick
. OR
Option 2: Get a combination board like UDOO, that has both components on a single board
. OR
Option 3: Get a combo board like the BeagleBoneBlack (BBB), though not Arduino compatible, is similar.
And in this case, how easy would it be to transfer the "logic of arduino wiring" for use with the BBB ?

Also, for options (1) & (2), what is the best way to encapsulate arduino logic in higher level languages such as Java/C++, but then have those objects talk "wiring-compatible" logic to the Arduino component. That would leverage the best of both worlds...

Thanks for you insights.
Regads,
/venkat
PS: Hope to get your book and gain more knowledge on this burgeoning field.
 
author
Posts: 15
7
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Venkat

it all depends on what 'Real world' projects you want to do. The Arduino is great for prototyping projects, the BBB allows you to achieve more complex projects requiring greater computing power.
Really it's a case of fitting the processor to your project and using the most suitable.

Martin
 
Bartender
Posts: 2659
19
Netbeans IDE C++ Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Would your book help to make that choice?
Does it give guidelines on what to go for once you outgrow the experimental phase and want to start building hardware with an embedded processor?
 
Martin Evans
author
Posts: 15
7
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
we don't really cover what the choices are with an embedded processor, things in that field are changing very rapidly with the Raspberry pi causing quite a disruptive shift. I've worked with both a Beagle bone and a Raspberry pi for video processing and am looking to use the new Beagle bone black shortly.
 
Rancher
Posts: 4686
7
Mac OS X VI Editor Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Martin Evans wrote:the Raspberry pi causing quite a disruptive shift. I've worked with both a Beagle bone...



For sure the PI and BeagleBone are impressive. But for folks new to embedded processing, the choice of which to use: Arduino, r-PI, Beagle, etc. is not a religious question, its a real engineering choice. For hacking a prototype, the choice really makes very little difference. Both the r-PI and the BeagleBone are ARM based and run a full operating system, while the Arduino (at least before the DUE model) is a less complex CPU and runs without what is usually called an operating system.

Assuming by "PC" you mean an Intel/Amd X86 architecture machine with an operating system such as Windows, OS-X or Liniux, personally, I'd never pick a PC as the smart half to pair with an Arduino or other microcontroller. I'd use an ARM system, with as many AVR controllers as I need (and you can use a lot of them cheaply.
 
Venkat Bommakanti
Greenhorn
Posts: 11
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Thanks, Pat.

By "pc" I was implying only a SoC-based mini/micro/embedded system - as in the three options listed above.
Considering the performance/power-consumed/cost metric, the current breed of x86 systems are not very suitable for many embedded applications. That may change in a couple of years...

Regards,
/venkat

Pat Farrell wrote:
...
Assuming by "PC" you mean an Intel/Amd X86 architecture machine with an operating system such as Windows, OS-X or Liniux, personally, I'd never pick a PC as the smart half to pair with an Arduino or other microcontroller. I'd use an ARM system, with as many AVR controllers as I need (and you can use a lot of them cheaply.

 
Pat Farrell
Rancher
Posts: 4686
7
Mac OS X VI Editor Linux
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Venkat Bommakanti wrote:the current breed of x86 systems are not very suitable for many embedded applications. That may change in a couple of years...



It may change, but I doubt it. The x86 architecture has outlived any dreams of its designers. Its a CISC system, like a DEC VAX. The ARM family will be beating it for the next decade. Until the next revolution comes along.....
 
Consider Paul's rocket mass heater.
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic