From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

How to pronounce "Arduino"?[edit]

Does the official team have an opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanwolf (talkcontribs) 19:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Arduino: The Documentary has many (all?) of the team talking about Arduino. --Imroy (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Can someone who knows International Phonetic Alphabet add an IPA or similar pronunciation to the article? DMacks (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What is it? What can it do?[edit]

For someone not familiar with the subject this article barely answers the above questions. There is very little explaining the types of things that can be connected to the Arduino or even how. For example, unless one already knows the full meaning of the term Physical computing or reads that article first, this article tells very little about the basics of what it is. I'd suggest an easing into the subject and adding context to the physical computing term, essentially defining it inline. There's a lot of good info here, but so far it's definitely for people that already know what it is. - Taxman Talk 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, its fairly useless article - it reads as a tech manual, not an encyclopedia entry. However given that Google just announced they are going to support this in future versions of Android, this is probably going to be very popular and soon some non nerds are going to explain what its all about ;) --IceHunter (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Please read This. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, this article is useless. I came here as an IT Engineer to understand what Arduino is all about and found a boring list of terms and data. I can't fix it and should not fix it because this is not my specialty. This must be done by those who compiled all this jungle. Mazarin07 (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Just as an IT Engineer would tell the above user "It's not that hard! Just press the fscking Caps Lock Key!!", I am telling you that it really is not that hard. Just do a web search, find out what people are doing with Arduinos, and write up a section that describes it with links to your sources. We even have a nice guide to help you at Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers and another at Wikipedia:The newcomer's manual. You think this article is useless? Fix it! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Strange attitude! People come here as users and you expect them to transform into editors when an article is of low quality! Surely users are allowed to express an opinion to inform those who have chosen to edit an article. (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Allowed to express an opinion about low article quality? Of course! And those opinions are more than welcome here. The thing is, I am equally allowed to express my opinion, which is that we as unpaid volunteers have no obligation to respond to that complaint and that it really is easy to fix things yourself. As of Monday, 29 May 2017, the English Wikipedia has 128,530 active editors and 5,414,488 articles. That's a little over 30 articles per editor. We could really use some more help. We could really use your help. Just pick a subject that you are comfortable with, read the article, and make the article better in some small way. We even have a page at Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers to help you. You might be surprised at how easy it is to become a Wikipedia editor! --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Release date of boards[edit]

please add the release date for each one of the table: "Arduino board models"

-- (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


I started a new section on applications Arduino#Applications -- it would be nice of others would add the more mature applications with links to the external webpages - or if particualry mature to the internal pages in wikipedia - thanks Luli17 (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


Where's the criticism section? There is so much overwhelming hate for Arduinos out there, I figured I'd come here to see what the crap that's all about. Hell, read the comment section in any one of these articles: (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been reading Hack A Day for a year or two now and I know about the 'hate' for Arduino on that site. As near as I can tell, most of the "criticism" of Arduino is simply elitism. Some people aren't happy that other people are using it when, in their opinion, another solution would be better.
For example, I found this comment. He doesn't like Arduino because he thinks it should only be used for prototyping, but sees people leaving the Arduino in the final project. That's not criticising Arduino itself and I think misses the whole point of Arduino - to make it easier for people to control electronics. Not everyone has the time or expertise to design a circuit, layout a board, etch the board, solder the components on, and program any micro-controller that might be used (and then find and fix any problems on the board).
Can you provide an example of actual criticism of Arduino itself? Because what I've seen has been pretty minor. --Imroy (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, what a bunch of utter elitist jerks. I don't have a problem with elitism per se, but I want to hear it from people who write DSP code in their heads, not someone who's used a PIC and now thinks they can look down on Arduinos! Although it's seemingly inevitable that such jerks exist, I would question why they have encyclopedia relevance?
Personally, one of the best "Wow!" moments I've had in the last year was watching some arts grad (yes, pure arts) at Bristol Dorkbot tying some clever Processing code into an Arduino-based lump of hardware and achieving something for its sheer decorative merit, not for the geek points of how hard they'd had to work to make the hardware drivers multi-thread properly. I like Arduinos because they're a tool that the people with the interesting ideas can make work, not just the ubergeeken with the patience to wrangle hardware. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some intelligent criticism here: (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
For legit criticism, look at this - - basically the criticism is that for a educational device, there are a bunch of ways to destroy the circuitry and/or microprocessor, and they all have pretty low cost solutions that could have been designed into the board (note that this is a site that used to sell their "fixed" board, the Ruggeduino, but while it's a company site, the criticisms seem fair. jmaslak (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
So for $40 they'll sell you a device that can still be destroyed electrically, but less easily than a $4 arduino. I think i'll just carry on with the four dollar unit, none of which I have managed to blow up. Greglocock (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
i don't know but reading through that website ruggedciruites it seems odd to me that they go on lengths to criticism arduino then suggest clone of arduino as fix. That would be similar if I went on lengths to criticism NES and then ended up suggesting famiclone rather than suggesting sega or PlayStation as alternative to NES. but the wikipedia article thou lacks criticism section there does seems to be plenty problems with arduino out there that are probably worth mentioning.DoctorHver (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The main criticism I hear about is the strange pin spacing which means it won't easily fit on a breadboard or veroboard. --Dohzer (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Could one of you guys that does this page write about the very real criticism that Arduino seems to be turning into Appleduino? Anon1491625 (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

To do that we would need to have reliable sources for the criticism, not just blog posts. If you locate any feel free to add them in yourself, or post them here and I can. a13ean (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how this site works, this is my first time trying to talk. What would be acceptable if the legal threat presented on the first page and the allegations of the Arduino guy on the second page is not acceptable? Anon1491625 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anon, yes it's complicated! Thanks for asking first.
WP has a strong policy that emphasises WP:Verifiability along with Truth. Sometimes said to take precedent over it! (which it doesn't, but it's a popular misconception). The difficulty is that on a large site like WP, half of the editors are below average in their abilities. We just can't rely on "editors knowing stuff", because for every editor who is an infallible authority on a topic, there are plenty more who aren't. Worst of all, is when they know something about something close to it - these people are difficult, as they don't know what they don't know.
So as a result, we rely heavily on WP:V and WP:RS. We don't rely on editors saying things, we don't rely on WP:SPS claiming things, we rely on the trustworthiness of the published press and its established reputation for honesty and fact checking. It's not perfect, but it's better than two editors arguing subjectively - that really is chaos.
I'm surprised by this story. AFAIK, "Arduino" has always been strongly protected and "*-duino" was available for other projects and happily accepted by the Arduino team. They also know what a lynch mob they'd face if they were ever thought to have acted against the open source ethos. So this story needs careful checking and sourcing, but if it does stand up, then it's significant and warrants inclusion here.
I can't image that it won't be all over Boing Boing, Make Magazine and even The Register before long though. Then we can use them as sources to support it here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice help Andy (and the cookies :) ), but I don't think I'll be able to learn all that's needed to edit in an acceptable way any time soon since I have pretty severe brain damage due to the brain tumors I've had, which makes it very difficult for me to learn new stuff. :( Would it be possible for you or someone else to look for "reliable sources" and edit the page? Anon1491625 (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen no other coverage of this as yet, but would expect to see it appear in the next day or two. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Olivetti, again[edit]

It appears that this rationale is being used to continue to refer to Olivetti in the article. There's no indication that Olivetti has anything to do with Arduino at all. The association here is no more appropriate than "Linus Torvalds was born in Finland, headquarters of Nokia" would be. Unless that's changed, this should be removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that Torvalds is older than Nokia, but the Arduino is younger than Olivetti, and was influenced by the effect that Olivetti had on the town, giving it an oversupply of engineers and a culture of creating such devices. It's hardly Silicon Valley, but it's similar to Silicon Glen and far more established than Silicon Roundabout. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Nokia's electonics division is two years older than Torvalds. :) As for Olivetti, my concern is that direct sourcing is weak: the best I can find is from Make, but it's no more than a throwaway sentence at the beginning of an article that doesn't elaborate on what "descendants of Olivetti" means. I'd be more comfortable directly referring to said electronics district as in this article rather than just alluding to them as if Arduino is directly descended from Olivetti. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see how "In 2005, in Ivrea, Italy (the main site of the computer company Olivetti), a project was initiated..." implies that Arduino is directly descended from Olivetti. If the most notable thing about Finland was Nokia, we might very well say that Linus Torvalds was born in Finland, headquarters of Nokia.
That being said, where is the citation supporting "Here was also developed the Arduino platform by an Olivetti spin-off" in the Ivrea article? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The citation attached to it was added at the same time as the assertion itself, so it appears to be original research. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that you cleaned up Ivrea, so my comment above no longer applies. I have been thinking about "(the main site of the computer company Olivetti)", and while it doesn't imply that Arduino is directly descended from Olivetti, it really doesn't add anything to the article either. On reflection, I say take it out. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just discovered a book by Massimo Banzi called "Getting Started with Arduino" in which he explains the young geeks from Ivrea started by recycling the Olivetti electronical waste in the 80s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


Hi Thumperward. You reverted my change to the section title. OK. However, I request that you change the section title to something besides "impact", because, if by "impact" you mean "effect", receiving an award is not an effect.Michael9422 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The award is an outcome of the impact that the project has had on the engineering community. The section needs to be expanded to contain other instances in which the Arduino has affected areas of engineering such as rapid prototyping, hacker culture, DIY and so on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that "Impact" is the better section title, and I especially disagree with the argument that the section title should summarize the article content that *will* be added in the future (or might be), rather than what is there *now*. Does the reader care what might be added later?Michael9422 (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Articles should be written in such a way as to encourage organic development along appropriate lines. If you title a section in such a way as to limit its focus to a list of awards, all that will be added to it is a list of rewards. If you title it so as to refer to the general impact that the subject has had on the world, the likelihood of receiving prose to that effect increases. Moreover, as the latter includes awards anyway, it's compatible with the former. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I you want everyone in the world to know how great it is, "Awards" is better. If you want to write an encyclopedia article about it, "Impact" or perhaps "reception" is better. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Good suggestion, Guy. Chris, do you object to it being changed to Reception?Michael9422 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
"Reception" is fine with me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Impact is an incredible word ! Fantastic ! You shouldn't target it unless you've got issues innit like. g4oep — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree (or agree, if meant sarcastically). The words "impact" and "incredible" are both hackneyed.Michael9422 (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links discussion[edit]

I'm not sure why everyone is so "delete happy" about the "External Link" section? The "Further Reading" section is more "out of control" than the external link section. Giving a vague "see WP:EL" is not a good enough reason to delete all the links, seriously! WP:EL doesn't list a maximum number of links that can be in this section, yes it says "small number", but it sure the heck doesn't mean the number is ONE either! • SbmeirowTalk • 12:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't removed any of these links here, but I've come here cleaning up after some (single-purpose) accounts/IPs who repeatedly inserted links to a blog site at into lots of electronics articles.
At least the following articles were affected (there may be more): Light-emitting diode, Surface-mount technology, Compile, Voltage regulator, Spectrum analyzer, Serial Peripheral Interface Bus, Headphones, Portable media player, Fog, Seven-segment display, Radio-frequency identification, and Display device.
The following articles still contain links to this external site (list may be incomplete): Arduino, Pulse-width modulation, LM317, 78xx (only one of the links inserted there is of a somewhat better quality).
Accounts seen inserting links to this site recently have been: Satwikmishravit, Buntybhai, Vibhutesh, (and by timing there appears to be some connection with account Mr n Mrs as well).
The external articles were often only tangential to our respective articles' subjects. Most of them contained no new information for readers of the WP articles. In several cases I could identify text and pictures as being copied from other related WP articles (sometimes with minor changes), f.e. article on display types is made up almost completely from WP material, including Seven-segment display, Nine-segment display, Nixie tube, Fourteen-segment display, Vane display, and Sixteen-segment display. Finally, these external articles do not provide references and they carry no publishing and authorship info, and they do not seem to exist for a long time - all in all they are of low quality, and therefore IMO do not qualify to be included as external links as per WP:EL. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the post. The reason I got ticked off was this edit: I could say more, but I think I already blew off enough steam above.
Thanks for taking care of the links. Good job. I did see it added to a couple of articles, but I wasn't aware they were spaming a bunch of articles.
I agree that lots of blogs aren't high enough quality for Wikipedia and they should be axed, but also there are some really good ones with incredible technical details and very good writing. Case in point... I don't know the person that has been doing the Arduino pinouts, but I've noticed lots of people raving with positive reviews of "his" drawings. Those pinout drawings are easy to read and very useful, thus is why I think they should stay in the Arduino article.
I feel that Wikipedia technical articles should include very useful links in the external link section. There is extremely useful high-quality information floating around on the internet and if we don't add that information to the articles, then we should be pointing at good sources.
I try to thin out the obvious low-quality external links, but I probably should be cutting more of the borderline ones.
SbmeirowTalk • 02:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a number of engineering and computer articles on my talk page, and when I see a new external link added to one of them I check the user's contribution history. Most of the time I find that this is a new editor and that his only edits have been to spam that same link to dozens of barely related pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, blindly cutting the whole section is certainly not the way to go. As you said, it should be a case-by-case decision. I have no problems if there are ten or more external links, if they really provide useful and possibly unique information that cannot be found elsewhere and cannot be integrated into the article for some reasons. I even have no problems with links to forums or blogs if they add real value and could establish some reputation over the years. That having said I would also axe these two external links:
Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Section move[edit]

The "further reading" section was getting to be quite long, but I didn't want to try to trim it down because it is so useful. I decided to WP:BOLDly move it to List of Arduino boards and compatible systems. Being a fairly long list, that page isn't overwhelmed by a long "further reading" section. Also, anyone who is interested enough to buy books on Arduino will probably also be interested enough to look at our list of Arduino boards. Given the popularity of the Arduino, eventually we may want to create a separate list-of-books page. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy Dingley and Guy Macon, for WP:SPLITTING out the "List of Arduino boards and compatible systems" into its own article. I suspect that there may be other aspects of Arduino that are already notable enough to support an entire Wikipedia article on that aspect -- analogous to the way several aspects of the IBM PC are notable enough to support several Wikipedia articles -- IBM PC compatible, Influence of the IBM PC on the personal computer market, IBM PC keyboard, etc. --DavidCary (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

What about Robot?[edit]

What about an Arduino Robot? It's available in Maker Shed online. -- (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Open Source and Open Hardware?[edit]

Is the Arduino project still open source and open hardware? There seems to be some question marks on this regarding the latest boards, the Yun and the robot. Mossig (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Arduino website still says it is open source and open hardware.
The Arduino FAQ ( [1] ) says the Arduino hardware is open-source hardware, and the Arduino software is also open-source.
In particular, the official Arduino Yun page ( [2] ) specifically says the "Arduino Yún is open-source hardware! You can build your own board using the following files" with a link to the schematics.
In particular, the official Arduino Robot page ( [3] ) specifically says "The Arduino Robot ... As always with Arduino, every element of the platform – hardware, software and documentation – is freely available and open-source."
Mossig, are there are any WP: reliable sources that question those statements? --DavidCary (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


This word sticks out in the first line as being inappropriate as the expected word is "applied" such as in "applied math." In technology, multidisciplinary would refer to applications in the direction of social sciences to link "humanity" to tech. WP is unfortunately weak in this area with its inbred bias against disagreeing POV (which it calls it "trolling") and contiguous exploration (which is thought of as digression and thus invariably dismissed as "off topic," or even "non-authoritative"). "Applied" is the word. --John Bessa (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Some just insists on using word which is hard to understand and largely irrelevant to engineer. If you think your word is better/clear/easier to understand, why not, you can change it. -- (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
"Multidisciplinary" is quite a good word here, and for the Processing programming language too. We do see Arduinos popping up in the humanities, and not just the arts, in a way that has re-united some fields of tech and non-tech that have been very separate for many years. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Here’s a good source: The Making of Arduino - IEEE Spectrum Cup o’ Java (talkedits) 01:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the chart linked from there showing the history of the Interaction Design Institute Ivrea Prototyping Toolbox is very detailed. --scruss (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I have stared to rewrite the history section with the information that was recently published by Hernando Barragán, the creator of Wiring and of which Arduino is based on. ( Please feel free to add more of this interesting information. --Ihatetoregister (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Pre-assembled ?[edit]

What exactly does "pre-assembled" mean? It was assembled BEFORE it was assembled? That makes no sense. The boards come assembled or do-it-yourself, the prefix "pre" on "assembled" is grammatically incorrect. (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

 DoneSbmeirowTalk • 04:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It may be done, but it is a false pedanticism. explains the word. Simply saying "assembled" may or may not tell you if it was pre-assembled. You have to add more words, words longer in fact than the prefix pre-, in order to create the same meaning. And English is not a closed language; any valid combination of root words with prefixes and suffixes are real English words. Even if it was the first time pre-assembled had ever been used, it would be a correct word, not a grammatical error. But in this case, it is a known word that can be looked up. See also: (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your erudite opinion. I agree. Unfortunately wiki is a haven for actual (as opposed to false) pedants, who will argue interminably about, well, practically, anything. One has to wonder what universe 2.97 lives in never to have heard or understood the expression. Sadly many wiki editors live in similar universes. Greglocock (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


It seems somewhat foolish to quote prices in the lead, as an example I can get Uno R3 clones for $4.20 including postage this week. Greglocock (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 DoneSbmeirowTalk • 04:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Arduino legal dispute[edit]

@Dsimic: — I notice that you reverted an edit by an anonymous IP user, removing reference to the "" site in the "External links" section. While I believe that "" is still the official site, be aware that there is currently a legal dispute in Italy and in the United States over user of the Arduino name and which entity is the "official" representative of the project. I stumbled onto a very recent article at that describes the dispute and includes a link to a PDF notice sent out to Arduino distributors. From the comment left by the IP user, I perceive it may have been someone with limited English skills and he was trying to shoehorn information about the dispute into the article, albeit rather ineptly. It may be useful for readers to be informed of this dispute and the dichotomy between and — QuicksilverT @ 14:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! That's a very good point, how about describing that in the article? Seems like a brief description of the dispute might be more usable, if you agree? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Source code or not[edit]

Hey, Kbrose! Regarding your edit, why do you find that as not being source code? It is a kind of source code excerpt, representing function names in particular, and it's universally common to format such things in a fixed font. Furthermore, regarding your other edit, have you read I've referred to earlier? It clearly says that using "that" is the preferred way. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Question and comment[edit]

1. I see both UNO and Uno on the official website. What is the official name?

2. The software section says programs are written in C or C++. The side table and the introduction also add Java. There is some inconsistency.

3. Can the output pins of any of the Arduino boards like the Uno be used to source voltage and current for something like 5V and 10mA? In other words, can I use a board as a power supply for something like driving LEDs? How accurate and stable is the voltage at the outputs?

ICE77 (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

2. Arduino software is developed in the Arduino's C++-like language. The Arduino IDE though was written in Java (it doesn't support more programming in Java).
The limited (and ugly) Arduino language is one of the biggest limitations on the Arduino, compared to platforms like the Raspberry Pi. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
3. Yes you can drive LEDs directly off a UNO's pins. I'd imagine the voltage specs would depend a great deal on what you are using to power the board, and who designed and manufactured it. I haven't noticed any problems with voltage stability, there again mine is hooked up a 320 Ah lead acid. Greglocock (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
3. There is no "defined voltage" at the outputs as such. The output stage is better considered practically as current sources and sinks with a current limit and an impedance. That said, some AVRs can handle up to 40mA, which is several middling-sized red LEDs. Unusually, the sink and source currents are symmetrical.
Read the chip datasheets. The Arduino board doesn't change these output circuits. "Atmel 8-bit AVR Microcontroller with 2/4/8K Bytes In-System Programmable Flash" (PDF). pp. 53,163. 
Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback on questions 2 and 3. Regarding the last question, today I worked on the Arduino UNO/Uno board and I successfully used it to turn on red and green LEDs with 5V and 3.3V.

ICE77 (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

REMINDER: this isn't a blog or help section for Arduino. See blog on Arduino website or Reddit or some other Arduino blog. • SbmeirowTalk • 05:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comparing a Raspberry Pi model B with 17 GPIO pins (and no built-in analog inputs), vs the Arduino Uno with 20 GPIO pins (of which 6 can be used as 10-bit built-in analog inputs), I agree that there are limitations.

1. The book "Arduino Internals" says

Being a proper name, Arduino is always capitalized. The model name Uno is stylized in all capitals only in the logo on the PCB.

-- Dale Wheat[1]

  1. ^ Dale Wheat. "Arduino Internals". p. 2.

If I understand that correctly, only the first letter in each word of the name Arduino Uno should be capitalized, unless one is drawing an artistic logo.

2. There seems to be some confusion between the Arduino IDE (which is software that runs on a PC) and "Arduino programs" (a variety of software that runs on an Arduino). The Arduino IDE includes, among other things, a text editor (written in Java) and the GNU Compiler Collection cross compiler (written in C++). The Arduino IDE runs on top of some operating system such as OSX or Linux.

People write a variety of Arduino programs in pure C, pure C++, or in C++ plus the Arduino libraries -- also called "the Arduino language". Some people use avr-gcc and their favorite text editor ( [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; etc. ), other people use the Arduino IDE, to compile an Arduino program and download it to Arduino hardware. An Arduino program runs "on bare metal" on the 8-bit processor used in most Arduino hardware, without any operating system. My understanding is that there is not yet any Java compiler available that can compile Java programs to run on the 8-bit processors used in most Arduino hardware.

How can we clarify this article to prevent the above confusion between these two kinds of software and the programming language(s) they are written in, the Arduino IDE vs. "Arduino programs" that run on Arduino hardware? --DavidCary (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

2. David Cary, you and Andy Dingley pretty much laid out the difference between the environment language (Java) and the sketches (C++). I think we could simply add a statement that points that out. Thank you for your input.
By the way, since sketches are written in C++ and run on a virtual machine like Java, how can the IDE interpret C++? Is there an interpreter/compliler? I'm not sure if it's in the article. If it's not, it would be nice add. I'm sorry if my programming skills and jargon are not updated.
ICE77 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
2. Yes, the Arduino IDE includes a compiler: the avr-gcc GNU Compiler Collection cross compiler.
Yes, many people write sketches in C++, and the cross compiler in the Arduino IDE compiles them to raw Atmel AVR machine code, and other parts of the Arduino IDE copy that machine code from the PC over the serial cable to the Arduino hardware -- then the Atmel AVR processor directly executes that machine code. There is no virtual machine in the Arduino hardware.
Neither the Arduino IDE itself nor anything else running on a PC ever runs or interprets the sketches -- in fact, many people are surprised to discover that the sketches they write continue to run on the Arduino hardware long after the Arduino hardware is disconnected from the PC. How can we tweak this article to prevent people from coming away with this common misunderstanding? --DavidCary (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Dale Wheat, thanks for the comment. I just saw your information now for the first time.

2. David Cary, I think it would be nice to have a section that clearly lists in sequence the steps from writing to compiling to execution with information on languages used, where the code is physically stored and so on. Using numbers and notes for each step would really help.

When I first powered up the Arduino UNO/Uno board I noticed that LED 13 was blinking but the board was never used before. I then loaded the sample sketch and I saw that is was just about the same presented in this article. Also, I did not notice any "#define LED_PIN 13" statement but I saw "int led = 13;".

Are you saying that you don't need to write in the Arduino language but that if you type code in C++ the code is still compiled and works anyway?

ICE77 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Lots of Arduino developers still use the board as a cheap mass-produced AVR board, but they no longer treat them as "Arduino". If you use standard AVR development tools (which may be C / C++, but could be other languages too) and you then program the chip directly through ICSP rather than using the Arduino bootloader, then you can use any dev toolchain you wish, so long as it produces AVR code.
It is sometimes hard to say just what an "Arduino" is. The processor is an AVR. The board circuit is little more than an AVR application note. The Arduino board standard pinout and shape isn't always followed, even by many Arduino. All that's really left is the dev environment (which many replace with another editor), the cross-compiler (which is just Gnu gcc) and then the Arduino bootloader, which is pretty minimal.
Many Arduino I've bought have arrived with the blink example already programmed in. Even, oddly, some Arduino Nano that don't even have the LED for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Batteries not included[edit]

AFAIK the Uno can run off a 9 V battery (in fact, anything from 7 to 12 V). If so, this should be mentioned in the article as it adds to the versatility of the device. Thanks, Maikel (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't anything special, because technically any board with a DC input is capable of running off batteries, well maybe bigger batteries but technically true. AUX IN range varies from board to board to clone, because different voltage regulators are used. • SbmeirowTalk • 05:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Arduino Zero[edit]

Please upload a nice looking photo of the Arduino Zero to Wikimedia Commons. • SbmeirowTalk • 02:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Split article[edit]

I propose that we split this article, similar to how it was done for the Raspberry Pi: Raspberry Pi and Raspberry Pi Foundation.

  • 1) HW & SW products (stays in this article).
  • 2) companies and legal mess (move to another article).

If this concept isn't the best way to deal with the legal mess, then we need to reword the intro to be more targeted of the products, and keep the legal mess in a special section.

SbmeirowTalk • 05:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This needs to be addressed! If no one replies, then I'll split it in the coming weeks. • SbmeirowTalk • 07:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any need to split it. The article is not particularly large to warrant that. Kbrose (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't have anything to do with size, but instead has to do with FOCUS of the article. Splitting the article similar how it was split on the Raspberry Pi allows most of the company related issues to be pushed into a 2nd article. The "Trademark dispute" can be moved, plus early founder history, including stuff that has been removed from this article. • SbmeirowTalk • 00:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Of course, size is a consideration. The focus is comprehensive, which is good when there is little information written. There is no reason to split when it is not confusing. Trademark disputes are part of the story. Kbrose (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Arduino Simulators[edit]

SbmeirowTalk • 02:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolve duplication and merge #Software and #Software development sections[edit]

#Software section duplicates the scope of Wiring (development platform)#Software and should be merged into #Software development section. -- Cedar101 (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)