|
I recommend using an ESP32 based development board. You can use Arduinos but they are more expensive and less capable, if slightly easier to work with, but that learning curve isn't a big deal.
Adafruit makes the huzzah feather which i don't recommend.
Hiletgo is a chinese brand I actually trust that makes a decent board and narrower than usual which makes it easier to build with on a solderless breadboard
Another good one is the DOIT devkit ESP32. It's a bit wider, but all the pins are labeled, and Random Nerd Tutorials covers them explicitly - it doesn't matter a lot since they are all the same with the exception of what order their pins come in, but still.
If you have one, you can code against with The Arduino IDE[^] which is C++ but C-ish in the way people actually end up using it because embedded. (mostly No STL,mostly no heap, etc)
As far as getting started, just google anything "Random Nerd Tutorials"
They make the best guides on how to build using these ESP32 things.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
As far as getting started, just google anything "Random Nerd Tutorials"
They make the best guides on how to build using these ESP32 things.
much obliged.
what do you think of the Mongoose OS for working with the ESP32?
|
|
|
|
|
I probably wouldn't use it just because I tend to not have the memory for a whole OS/framework plus my code, but bully for them.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I struggle with this all of the time.
A really big problem is people who over-architect things by insisting on chasing after the latest shiny thing or pattern, gumming up the code-base with endless libraries/dependencies and then run off to something else leaving an incomprehensible mess that has to be maintained.
Add in some interfaces, code generation and various packages and many times I find myself asking: "Where is the code that actually does the thingy?"
You cannot go to a controller (MVC) and find the database access code there - no, that is in a handler, but wait, it isn't there either because you've got it pushed off to EF - but the actual implementation is packed behind some generated code - and to edit that you must learn library X, Y, and Z... and it goes on and on for no real benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
We agree, and I say that as a prolific author of code generators. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
My first professional dev job was as an embedded programmer at a fire alarm company.
The best project I ever worked on there, was an interface between the devices of an earlier generation system (smoke & heat detectors, pull stations, etc.) and the latest generation system.
We still used the waterfall methodology back then. My manager trusted me and gave me basically complete control of every phase.
I ended up creating a state machine in C on an 8057 microcontroller. I will never forget that day the new gen system began talking to the older gen devices. It was still at the in-circuit emulator stage, of course, but that damn pull station over there, lit that damn LED on the front panel here! lol
Good times.
Now, to your point, the only thing constant in life is change. Nowhere is that more apparent than in software. I realized it very early on and made a commitment to lifelong learning.
But that isn't to say there is only one path through the forest. I essentially followed my heart.
At that fire alarm company back in the late 80's, I worked with nascent "expert system" dev environments to help the service techs in the field. I bought one of the early releases of BrainMaker from California Scientific (I think I still have the 3.5" floppys somewhere) around 1989.
For you young'uns, life is too short to become trapped in the matrix! Take the red pill!
Hack your own path through the forest. It's more dangerous, but by far more interesting.
So, a little off topic. But I had fun. 
Cheers,
Mike Fidler
"I intend to live forever - so far, so good." Steven Wright
"I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met." Also Steven Wright
"I'm addicted to placebos. I could quit, but it wouldn't matter." Steven Wright yet again.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure why, but I absolutely love designing, coding and/or generating state machines.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
One of the things I've noticed aging is I very rarely write programs for fun versus profit, i.e. my job.
When I look at things like IoT, machine learning and AI, I don't feel the motivation to get involved. It's not an inability to learn as I'm often learning and incorporating new things in my work, but it's more that I've limited the scope of the learning to what is practical for me.
I suppose it's like a doctor with a specialty they've practiced for 20 years. The newest things outside of your specialty are interesting, but you probably won't use them.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't relate yet, because while I've narrowed the scope of what I'm willing to learn somewhat, I'm still eager about things that capture my interest. IoT was one such thing, and then fun became work as my hobby landed me a gig designing some of these things. Fun fun. Sometimes I find it funny what I can get people to pay me to do.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
You basically described how I feel just about every day...
I have completed a third attempt at selling a software application (the base application is free and anyone can use it) but the finalization process of testing and completing the updater has me wondering why even bother any longer.
Software development has not really changed over the years since I really enjoyed learning all the new tools; it has just simply become far more complex to basically accomplish the same things we have always been doing.
There is little respect left for the senior engineers and developers in our profession allowing for rampant ageism to run through the field resulting in a loss of a massive amount of knowledge on how things should be done to make things just work.
Today, everyone is in a rush to promote the latest tool-sets despite the realities that none of them will really accomplish anything more than what we used years ago.
Web development has, as a result, become a horror show where even many younger developers are starting to wonder if all the complexity is any longer manageable or even worth it. As to the latter, it isn't.
Subsequently, I have decided to no longer do such development, preferring to remain with simply developing WPF applications since it is much more straight forward.
If I decide to move my current project to that of a multi-user one, I have already decided to build it as a client-server application since .NET makes such older endeavors far easier to implement minus all of the added complexities of dealing with a web server. Of course, it may not be considered "cool" but who knows...
At 70 years of age and still involved with a field (on my own) I have spent decades in as an employee and senior consultant, I mourn the loss of the lessor complexity of our earlier years.
Really, what have we gained with all these upgrades and more complex paradigms and tools? A little extra speed? A purest approach to web development? Who really cares in the scheme of things?
Before the deprivations of outsourcing by greedy, self-centered corporations, our profession in the United States was considered a nation treasure, a crown jewel. Now look at us.
And if one is approaching their sixties or already in them, unless one is working completely on their own, they can soon expect to be jettisoned from this profession simply because of their age.
However, historians have always said that Humans have no generational memory so everything old is simply to be discarded...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
I would assume not only that you are not alone, but that any programmer with 10+ years under their belt feels the same way or is a glutton for punishment. The focus has shifted from crafting good code to a tech race ignoring the basics. Even those who focus on good code get lost in the spaghetti of "smell" and patterns.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't express how much I feel what you're saying.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend; inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -- Groucho Marx
|
|
|
|
|
IoT seems of interest to many. (Not me so much.) Maybe this[^] is of interest.
|
|
|
|
|
From MSDN: Quote: This exception is thrown when an OpenIdConnect protocol handler encounters an invalid nonce.
Does that means he is in a wheelchair? 
|
|
|
|
|
As you have probably already discovered that is referring to a cryptographic nonce[^].
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but it is a very odd choice of word. In British slang a nonce is a sex offender, particularly one who abuses young people.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting,
Looking at the etymology it appears that the British slang is modern from ~1975[^] with the older Middle English meaning 'something used once'.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of like how "smoking a fag" means two entirely different things in GB English and USA English 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but you don't expect to find it in the technical documentation.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe in the 80's.
"Go smoke a fag while the installation is running.
This software was sponsored by Pall Mall." 
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,
There is also the British 'chuffed to the muff' which an American might misunderstand.
|
|
|
|
|
As a secondary language English speaker it means nothing at all to me
I guessed it meant being full after a good dinner, but I was wrong and now I'm not chuffed to the muff 
|
|
|
|
|
In your country... U kunt de kok om bitterballen vragen.
|
|
|
|
|
To quote this discussion's topic: What?
Other than the literal meaning, asking the cook for "bitterballen" (which has no English translation), I don't think that means anything
|
|
|
|
|
Heh,
I don't speak Dutch, I simply tried to generate a legible sentence out of funny sounding Dutch words.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
