Pros of arduino-esp32

• Specifically designed for ESP32 microcontrollers, offering optimized performance and features
• Includes built-in Wi-Fi and Bluetooth functionality, enabling IoT applications
• Provides access to ESP32-specific hardware features and peripherals

Cons of arduino-esp32

• Limited to ESP32 boards, lacking support for other Arduino-compatible hardware
• May have a steeper learning curve for users unfamiliar with ESP32 architecture
• Potentially less stable or mature compared to the official Arduino CLI

Code Comparison

arduino-cli:

#include <Arduino.h>

void setup() {
  Serial.begin(9600);
}

void loop() {
  Serial.println("Hello from Arduino!");
  delay(1000);
}

arduino-esp32:

#include <Arduino.h>
#include <WiFi.h>

void setup() {
  Serial.begin(115200);
  WiFi.begin("SSID", "PASSWORD");
}

void loop() {
  Serial.println("Hello from ESP32!");
  delay(1000);
}

The arduino-esp32 example demonstrates built-in Wi-Fi functionality, while the arduino-cli example shows a more generic Arduino sketch. The ESP32 code uses a higher baud rate (115200) for serial communication, which is common for ESP32 boards.

Pros of PlatformIO Core

• Supports a wider range of boards and platforms beyond Arduino
• Offers a more flexible and powerful build system
• Integrates well with various IDEs and text editors

Cons of PlatformIO Core

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• May require more setup and configuration
• Larger installation size and resource usage

Code Comparison

Arduino CLI:

#include <Arduino.h>

void setup() {
  pinMode(LED_BUILTIN, OUTPUT);
}

void loop() {
  digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, HIGH);
  delay(1000);
  digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, LOW);
  delay(1000);
}

PlatformIO Core:

#include <Arduino.h>

void setup() {
  pinMode(LED_BUILTIN, OUTPUT);
}

void loop() {
  digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, HIGH);
  delay(1000);
  digitalWrite(LED_BUILTIN, LOW);
  delay(1000);
}

The code for both platforms is identical in this basic example. However, PlatformIO Core allows for more advanced project structures and build configurations, which can be specified in a platformio.ini file:

[env:uno]
platform = atmelavr
board = uno
framework = arduino

This configuration file demonstrates PlatformIO's flexibility in specifying project settings, which is not directly available in Arduino CLI.

Pros of Arduino_Core_STM32

• Specialized support for STM32 microcontrollers, offering optimized performance
• Extensive library of STM32-specific functions and features
• Seamless integration with STM32CubeMX for easy pin configuration

Cons of Arduino_Core_STM32

• Limited to STM32 boards, lacking support for other Arduino-compatible platforms
• May require additional setup and configuration compared to the more universal arduino-cli
• Smaller community and fewer resources compared to the main Arduino ecosystem

Code Comparison

Arduino_Core_STM32:

#include <STM32duino.h>

void setup() {
  pinMode(LED_BUILTIN, OUTPUT);
}

arduino-cli:

#include <Arduino.h>

void setup() {
  pinMode(LED_BUILTIN, OUTPUT);
}

The code structure is similar, but Arduino_Core_STM32 uses STM32-specific headers and may offer additional functions tailored for STM32 boards. arduino-cli provides a more generic approach, suitable for various Arduino-compatible platforms.

Pros of MicroPython

• Supports a wider range of microcontrollers and boards
• Offers a more Python-like programming experience
• Includes an interactive REPL for quick testing and development

Cons of MicroPython

• Generally requires more memory and processing power
• May have slower execution speed for certain operations
• Less extensive library ecosystem compared to Arduino

Code Comparison

MicroPython:

from machine import Pin
import time

led = Pin(2, Pin.OUT)
while True:
    led.toggle()
    time.sleep(1)

Arduino CLI:

int ledPin = 2;

void setup() {
  pinMode(ledPin, OUTPUT);
}

void loop() {
  digitalWrite(ledPin, !digitalRead(ledPin));
  delay(1000);
}

Summary

MicroPython offers a more Python-like experience and supports a wider range of boards, but may require more resources and have slower execution in some cases. Arduino CLI provides a more traditional C++ approach with a larger ecosystem of libraries and potentially faster execution, but with a steeper learning curve for beginners. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements, hardware constraints, and developer preferences.

Pros of nodemcu-firmware

• Built-in Wi-Fi capabilities, making it easier to create IoT projects
• Lua scripting support, offering a more accessible programming environment
• Extensive built-in libraries for common IoT tasks

Cons of nodemcu-firmware

• Limited hardware compatibility compared to Arduino's wide range of boards
• Smaller community and fewer resources compared to Arduino's ecosystem
• Less suitable for low-level hardware control and timing-critical applications

Code Comparison

NodeMCU (Lua):

wifi.setmode(wifi.STATION)
wifi.sta.config({ssid="MyNetwork", pwd="password"})
mqtt = require("mqtt")
m = mqtt.Client("clientid", 120)
m:connect("broker.example.com", 1883)

Arduino (C++):

#include <WiFi.h>
#include <PubSubClient.h>
WiFiClient wifiClient;
PubSubClient client(wifiClient);
void setup() {
  WiFi.begin("MyNetwork", "password");
  client.setServer("broker.example.com", 1883);
}

The code comparison shows that NodeMCU's Lua scripting offers a more concise syntax for common IoT tasks like Wi-Fi and MQTT setup, while Arduino provides a more familiar C++ environment with greater flexibility for advanced users.