I find "programming" a constant distraction from electronics in some "tutorials"

[eti]

Go to any random internet "tutorial" for some aspect of electronics, and you're almost certainly going to see "Here's my github >>" and/or "... and I've written some code here for..."

Whilst I admit that it's not unreasonable to expect to have to write *some* code once in a while, when your main area of experience or expertise is hardware, and not software, I find it *incredibly* distracting to constantly be led down the "now let's look at the Arduino code for this..." .

Case in point is a function generator I am playing with - the AD9833 module. I want to generate waves, not sift through Arduino code learning syntax and work out what's what in an IDE, debug dodgy UART drivers etc... yeah I get that I can BUY a func gen, but I don't have the funds right now, and this board suffices just nicely. I want to generate ANALOGUE waves for an ANALOGUE circuit, not learn a new paradigm in a different area - it's SO DISTRACTING.

What did people do before Arduino and microcontrollers were the go-to "solution" (lazy solution) for almost EVERY project online, if they wanted to generate waveforms? They'd learn to build **a circuit** using electronics skills, not some random programming language which has nothing whatsoever to do with the circuit!

This is where laziness shows up in our engineering society - no one's willing to invest the time and work in a project (incuding me btw, often) so they tack together a "solution" which makes the project dependant on some microcontroller or board - that DOESN'T teach us electronics fundamentals. I am learning *electronics*, not Arduino. Is there anyone left whom publishes clear tutorials to show one how to make such circuits in a "Mr Carlson's Lab" kinda way (IE, clear, slow and calm) without resorting to uC's?

Thanks.

[fourfathom]

Do you want fundamentals, or do you want working projects?  There is a difference, especially when the practical solution uses devices that require a control interface.

Look at ham radio projects if you want to build something using simple (non-programmable) components,  There are still a lot out there that require some design finesse and use traditional parts.

[pidcon]

All the hassle from balancing learning programming and other hardware stuff is good for the future. It's natural to want things to be put together as quickly as possible. A 100% analogue solution will take longer to produce and be less flexible.

[Buriedcode]

Go to any random internet "tutorial" for some aspect of electronics, and you're almost certainly going to see "Here's my github >>" and/or "... and I've written some code here for..."

Whilst I admit that it's not unreasonable to expect to have to write *some* code once in a while, when your main area of experience or expertise is hardware, and not software, I find it *incredibly* distracting to constantly be led down the "now let's look at the Arduino code for this..." .

Then ... don't read that persons project/blog/tutorial ?  Because it is so easy to post projects and ideas on many platforms, there's so many, of varying levels of complexity and quality, that it is up to you to find one that you are interested in and suits your needs.  People provide this information for free, and whilst many may be overkill on micro usage, you don't have to read their code...

Case in point is a function generator I am playing with - the AD9833 module. I want to generate waves, not sift through Arduino code learning syntax and work out what's what in an IDE, debug dodgy UART drivers etc... yeah I get that I can BUY a func gen, but I don't have the funds right now, and this board suffices just nicely. I want to generate ANALOGUE waves for an ANALOGUE circuit, not learn a new paradigm in a different area - it's SO DISTRACTING.

So you find it distracting, and frustrating that people haven't formatted or designed their projects in a way you want.   If you want to build an analogue function generator, then google "analogue function generator"

What did people do before Arduino and microcontrollers were the go-to "solution" (lazy solution) for almost EVERY project online, if they wanted to generate waveforms? They'd learn to build **a circuit** using electronics skills, not some random programming language which has nothing whatsoever to do with the circuit!

Depends how far back you go.  15 years?  a PIC, or an 8051 were used if the project required control or computation beyond what raw logic could do.  Analogue isn't dead, the real world is analogue.
It's just the low cost, convenience, ease of use etc.. of the Arduino platform - and these days, microcontrollers in general - has lowered the bar for "just use a micro".   Perhaps 20 years ago, folks would use a handful of TTL or CMOS glue logic, and a load of analogue, which took time to prototype, debug, lay out etc..  But not for about $3 you can have a small breadboard friendly module that you can program and debug in 20 minutes that is capable of far more than the "old" way.  It is simply, quicker, cheaper, and easier for many projects. Welcome to the 21st century.

I understand that "just throw an Arduino at it" is a bit boring and doesn't show other solutions, but surely you can see why that is the case?  The only people going out of their way to avoid micros or FPGA's or modern IC's are those trying to build vintage/legacy hobby projects.   You can still find plenty of old school schematics if you want to do things in a different way, and you can still buy many of the parts - so whats the problem?

This is where laziness shows up in our engineering society - no one's willing to invest the time and work in a project (incuding me btw, often) so they tack together a "solution" which makes the project dependant on some microcontroller or board - that DOESN'T teach us electronics fundamentals. I am learning *electronics*, not Arduino. Is there anyone left whom publishes clear tutorials to show one how to make such circuits in a "Mr Carlson's Lab" kinda way (IE, clear, slow and calm) without resorting to uC's?

Also remember, the projects you see online (hackaday, instructables etc.. are often one-off hobby creations.  It's about knocking something up quick, with the parts you have, not always cheap, and certainly not always robust or well engineered, so why do you assume that they should be perfectly engineered?  It's like looking at A-level art projects and complaining about them not being a Turner.

Electronics is so much more accessible with the internet.  Decades ago, whilst you could of course buy kits, and read books, it was still a bit of a niche, and was relatively expensive.  As books cost a fair bit to publish, the quality of the information was somewhat higher than the internet - where you can literally post anything, regardless of validity, and it goes unchecked.  We all learned this lesson in the 90's, and it is up to you to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Seriously, it just sounds like you're complaining that you're searching for projects that you either don't understand or don't like because they don't do things the way you think they should.  And they provide them to you, for free, it is up to you to sort through them.

[ebastler]

Case in point is a function generator I am playing with - the AD9833 module. I want to generate waves, not sift through Arduino code [...]
What did people do before Arduino and microcontrollers were the go-to "solution" (lazy solution) for almost EVERY project online, if they wanted to generate waveforms?
 [...]

Umm... You did realize that the AD9833 is a programmable waveform generator, did you? To use it, you might want to program it -- surprise! So I am not sure what you are complaining about. (Well, but that's true for most of your posts...)

May I recommend tube amplifiers as your next project? Less likely to encounter that pesky programmable stuff there. 

[Ian.M]

Just imagine how many eurocards full of TTL logic you'd need to set up all the parameters for the AD9833 on rotary hex switches and dip-switches, and serialize the data as sequenced SPI frames, all without using any MCUs, programmable logic or other programmable devices!  Maybe just build an 8 bit serializer and use manually punched cards to program it?

[james_s]

The vast majority of interesting parts on the market today require some amount of programming in order to configure and control them. If you are not interested in programming then good old fashioned analog design still works, but it's kind of esoteric these days. You might study the app notes and books Jim Williams wrote, he was one of the best analog designers around.

[tszaboo]

The vast majority of interesting parts on the market today require some amount of programming in order to configure and control them. If you are not interested in programming then good old fashioned analog design still works, but it's kind of esoteric these days. You might study the app notes and books Jim Williams wrote, he was one of the best analog designers around.

I dont think that he is talking about that. I recently watched a micropython tutorial, where the presenter spent 5 minutes explaining what a GPIO is. It is very distracting. And  (I think) the reason is that the majority of audience and presenters are programmers and not EEs. It seems to be rewarding that they can blink an LED, or read I2C data from some Adafruit or other sensor. Compare how many tutorials there are on opamps vs ie the BM280 sensor.

But let's just stay with the AD9833. You could create an AM radio from it. Or a LRC meter. Or an ultrasonic weld joint inspector. But no, all the first results are playing sine wave music with an arduino. Or a function gen. I personally used it to generate test signal to measure battery ESR.

Yet there is only like 1 video, named "dds IC AD9833 shortwave reciever 1" which actually uses it to do something.  700 views. "AD9833 DDS Based Resonance Meter for TESLA Coils and Function Generator (Software Configurable)" 11 views. The videos that are getting the views are just messing around with it.

[ucanel]

...
 or don't like because they don't do things the way you think they should.  And they provide them to you, for free,
...

+1

You may also try Ben Eater's channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/BenEater

[eti]

The vast majority of interesting parts on the market today require some amount of programming in order to configure and control them. If you are not interested in programming then good old fashioned analog design still works, but it's kind of esoteric these days. You might study the app notes and books Jim Williams wrote, he was one of the best analog designers around.

I dont think that he is talking about that. I recently watched a micropython tutorial, where the presenter spent 5 minutes explaining what a GPIO is. It is very distracting. And  (I think) the reason is that the majority of audience and presenters are programmers and not EEs. It seems to be rewarding that they can blink an LED, or read I2C data from some Adafruit or other sensor. Compare how many tutorials there are on opamps vs ie the BM280 sensor.

But let's just stay with the AD9833. You could create an AM radio from it. Or a LRC meter. Or an ultrasonic weld joint inspector. But no, all the first results are playing sine wave music with an arduino. Or a function gen. I personally used it to generate test signal to measure battery ESR.

Yet there is only like 1 video, named "dds IC AD9833 shortwave reciever 1" which actually uses it to do something.  700 views. "AD9833 DDS Based Resonance Meter for TESLA Coils and Function Generator (Software Configurable)" 11 views. The videos that are getting the views are just messing around with it.

It speaks volumes that only ONE person "gets" what I am on about. Thank you for speaking up, and not allowing the majority to imply I am retarded, or "stupid" for thinking how I do. 

Many, many years, an old boss of mine told me "the TRUE component-level, electronics fundamental designers are a rare breed - now it's all module-pluggers who call themselve 'electronics engineers' when all they know how to do, for the most part, is copy blocks and plug them together"  - I recall having brought up this conversation (this was the 90s) - boy was he ever right!

[eti]

...
 or don't like because they don't do things the way you think they should.  And they provide them to you, for free,
...

+1

You may also try Ben Eater's channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/BenEater

Yes, thank you, I find him fantastic. 

[eti]

Case in point is a function generator I am playing with - the AD9833 module. I want to generate waves, not sift through Arduino code [...]
What did people do before Arduino and microcontrollers were the go-to "solution" (lazy solution) for almost EVERY project online, if they wanted to generate waveforms?
 [...]

Umm... You did realize that the AD9833 is a programmable waveform generator, did you? To use it, you might want to program it -- surprise! So I am not sure what you are complaining about. (Well, but that's true for most of your posts...)

May I recommend tube amplifiers as your next project? Less likely to encounter that pesky programmable stuff there.

Clearly...  hehe

[Brumby]

I get what you are saying, but the world has moved on to the point of incredible complexity.  This has resulted in specialisation becoming absolutely necessary to produce the best results for any given corner of technology.  Flexibility has become a prime consideration in just about any design you might care to think about in pretty much every market segment - retail, commercial, industrial, aerospace or whatever - and this has brought us the modular units (such as Arduino) which can provide this flexibility.  As mentioned above, configuration of these modules is what allows a set hardware configuration to perform a variety of functions - and since these functions are so wide and varied, this configuration has also become complex.

Here is where we take the configuration process into a much bigger world - and call it programming.

We have moved on from digging ditches with pick and shovel to where big hydraulic machines are found everywhere.  Certainly, the pick and shovel still have a place, but you will find them special cases, rather than widespread use.  Such is the case for this day and age in the world of electronics.

Today, we stand on the shoulders of giants where the giants worked with the design details that created the modular tools and it is these modular tools that provide the means to produce the required outcome.

One sad aspect of this is that the analogue nature of circuits is getting lost and those all-important principles that apply are often only addressed as an after-thought when things don't work as expected.  The general response is that the module designers step up the performance of their modules so that the plug and play approach works as expected, which just affirms the concentration of "true" electronics design skills into the speciality of module development.

This is where we are today ... and, as I see it, it won't be going in any direction other than further down the same path.

Anyway, just think of microprocessor based circuits as requiring a high level of configuration.   

[fourfathom]

I think eti was trolling (and I was the first to bite)

[greenpossum]

First, build a time machine. With non-programmable components naturally.

[eti]

Why do you just have to rant on everything and do it so often mate?

Sorry that my curiosity doesn't meet your approval.

[eti]

I think eti was trolling (and I was the first to bite)

Ah that old chestnut, where a question or topic outside a limited range of expected lines of enquiry, is seen to not "conform" to some arbitrarily decided-upon "format", and so some random person decrees them as "trolling", simply because that's the easiest thing to attribute to someone not behaving in the manner they're used to.

I'm inquisitive, I ask questions that don't always fit your expectations, I expect more of a forum rammed to the rafters with highly intelligent engineering folk than to resort to such lazy, idiotic categorisation.

Okay so YOU think I'm a troll, fine. Leave the thread then.

That's very intelligent indeed, eh. 

This is the kind of binary yes/no dipshit, over-simplified "logic" that the supposed "community" of the internet has brainwashed some people into choosing as a go-to attribution for something that doesn't fit in anywhere they're not expecting l, or aren't suitably humble enough to step back, look at objectively and then try to answer SANS ad-hom.

I suppose I may overestimate people sometimes eh?

Think as you wish of me, it makes not one solitary jot of difference to me 


You may like to take a few moments to examine this somewhat intelligent look at why "trolling" is vastly overused: https://theweek.com/articles/445615/time-kill-word-troll

[fourfathom]

I think eti was trolling (and I was the first to bite)

Ah that old chestnut, where a question or topic outside a limited range of expected lines of enquiry, is seen to not "conform" to some arbitrarily decided-upon "format", and so some random person decrees them as "trolling", simply because that's the easiest thing to attribute to someone not behaving in the manner they're used to.

I'm inquisitive, I ask questions that don't always fit your expectations, I expect more of a forum rammed to the rafters with highly intelligent engineering folk than to resort to such lazy, idiotic categorisation.

Okay so YOU think I'm a troll, fine. Leave the thread then.

That's very intelligent indeed, eh. 

OK, so you're not trolling.  After a while I was thinking "walks, quacks, etc.", especially after your previous "Clearly...  hehe" comment, but I guess not this time.  I did give a sincere to your question answer so why don't you cool down?

[eti]

I think eti was trolling (and I was the first to bite)

Ah that old chestnut, where a question or topic outside a limited range of expected lines of enquiry, is seen to not "conform" to some arbitrarily decided-upon "format", and so some random person decrees them as "trolling", simply because that's the easiest thing to attribute to someone not behaving in the manner they're used to.

I'm inquisitive, I ask questions that don't always fit your expectations, I expect more of a forum rammed to the rafters with highly intelligent engineering folk than to resort to such lazy, idiotic categorisation.

Okay so YOU think I'm a troll, fine. Leave the thread then.

That's very intelligent indeed, eh. 

OK, so you're not trolling.  After a while I was thinking "walks, quacks, etc.", especially after your previous "Clearly...  hehe" comment, but I guess not this time.  I did give a sincere to your question answer so why don't you cool down?

How are you able to ascertain whether or not I'm calm?  I always talk in this precise manner, so as to leave no ambiguity as to my meaning. Yeah it doesn't always work though, hah! 

Appreciate your intentions in trying to "calm" me - I'm as tranquil and still as the dead sea

[vk6zgo]

Go to any random internet "tutorial" for some aspect of electronics, and you're almost certainly going to see "Here's my github >>" and/or "... and I've written some code here for..."

Whilst I admit that it's not unreasonable to expect to have to write *some* code once in a while, when your main area of experience or expertise is hardware, and not software, I find it *incredibly* distracting to constantly be led down the "now let's look at the Arduino code for this..." .

Case in point is a function generator I am playing with - the AD9833 module. I want to generate waves, not sift through Arduino code learning syntax and work out what's what in an IDE, debug dodgy UART drivers etc... yeah I get that I can BUY a func gen, but I don't have the funds right now, and this board suffices just nicely. I want to generate ANALOGUE waves for an ANALOGUE circuit, not learn a new paradigm in a different area - it's SO DISTRACTING.

What did people do before Arduino and microcontrollers were the go-to "solution" (lazy solution) for almost EVERY project online, if they wanted to generate waveforms? They'd learn to build **a circuit** using electronics skills, not some random programming language which has nothing whatsoever to do with the circuit!

This is where laziness shows up in our engineering society - no one's willing to invest the time and work in a project (incuding me btw, often) so they tack together a "solution" which makes the project dependant on some microcontroller or board - that DOESN'T teach us electronics fundamentals. I am learning *electronics*, not Arduino. Is there anyone left whom publishes clear tutorials to show one how to make such circuits in a "Mr Carlson's Lab" kinda way (IE, clear, slow and calm) without resorting to uC's?

Thanks.

This sort of thing has been going on since at least the mid 1980s, when I had to produce a project as part  of my "Bridging training " to become a "Techical Officer"(Yesterday, I couldn't spell Teknickle Ossifer--now I are one!)

The requirement was for an audio signal generator, which, if you rang a particular phone number, would connect to a broadcast programme line & generate a standard set of audio tests.

All the (then), "micro processor" enthusiasts said:-"Just use a micro".

Apart from all the peripherals needed in those days, I would have had to learn programming.

The audio quality available from either generating the tone digitally, or using special analog chips was quite poor, so I ended up with a commercially made switched oscillator.

I replaced the mechanical switches with 4066 bilateral switches for frequency steps, & relays for output levels, etc.(the latter done with external attenuators & terminations)

These were all switched via a diode matrix, fed from a couple of 4017 decade counters, clocked by a 555, which, in turn, was triggered by a commercial (actually in-house designed) device to detect the original phone call.

All my stuff worked, but the settling time of the Wien bridge oscillator in the audio generator was too long.

Had I used a "micro", I would probably still been designing it! 

[Circlotron]

What did people do before Arduino and microcontrollers were the go-to "solution" (lazy solution) for almost EVERY project online, if they wanted to generate waveforms?

They'd use a 555 instead to flash a LED. And they were lauded as geniuses, of course.

[ebastler]

It speaks volumes that only ONE person "gets" what I am on about.

Indeed, it does.

[vk6zgo]

What did people do before Arduino and microcontrollers were the go-to "solution" (lazy solution) for almost EVERY project online, if they wanted to generate waveforms?

They'd use a 555 instead to flash a LED. And they were lauded as geniuses, of course.

Who uses a 555?
Self flashing  LEDs have been around for decades!

I greatly prefer to use a 90v battery, a capacitor, & a resistor to flash a neon, anyway!

[Circlotron]

What did people do before Arduino and microcontrollers were the go-to "solution" (lazy solution) for almost EVERY project online, if they wanted to generate waveforms?

They'd use a 555 instead to flash a LED. And they were lauded as geniuses, of course.

Who uses a 555?
Self flashing  LEDs have been around for decades!

I greatly prefer to use a 90v battery, a capacitor, & a resistor to flash a neon, anyway!

Your skillz will be in demand in a post apocalyptic world.

[ucanel]

...

You may also try Ben Eater's channel:
https://www.youtube.com/c/BenEater

Yes, thank you, I find him fantastic. 

So what about Apliied Science channel,
i think you also like his work to.
https://www.youtube.com/c/AppliedScience