[quote author=James C4S date=1483500979 link=msg=3068453]
Dubious statements are dubious.
If you try to do it in a very strange way, then no, it would not be a surprise if it doesn't work as expected.
The actual blink examples are not broken. Nor is yours.
The only factual statement of your post.
blan blah blah
In reply I am not going to go quote by qote, especially against one so well informed. Dubious statements are dubious is called a tautology, much like arrogance is arrogance. Having gotten thru this lets try to address any substantive points.
The code Bald E found strange including the comments is the 101 example for the arduino, found under examples, but run with micro sec instead of milli sec. The wrong comments are in fact those left over from that example which I copied, rather than rewrite. I did make some additions. I think Bald E, may have missed the text at the link I posted which said "Some remnants of the old comments are still in there."
Careful reading is always good when programming.
"Fast' is relative, true, and as you can see from my post here ( no need to go to the link ) the half period is 5000us. So there you have a number on it.
Where is the rest of the code, well there are about 500 lines in the main code, so if you follow the wiki link you will find an additional link to all of it. Just press a few buttons.
Q. What do you mean by glitch? What measurements are you making to come up with a precise number like 81.92ms? A. -- well again see the link, I used a logic analyzer. You can see them yourself if you want to all the data is there -- but with the analyzer data you also need to download its code ( link also there )
Statement: That said. I took your vague code snippet, removing the incorrect comments, and created this one: Response: If you think the "incorrect comments" caused a problem, I can assure you they did not. Nor did your while ( true ) which my subroutine did require but not loop() which basically is while( true )
Looked at your scope pics. We may have the same scope! In any case I have scoped this sort of output for years and the pics do look nice, on my scope too! But this is a bit too subtle for the scope to catch. That is why I used a logic analyzer. I will post a few more pictures there that may help. I tested both the scope and the analyzer with an oscillator to try to be sure that problem was not an artifact.
Perhaps you can suggest which forum to post in, note that I claim the problem is with the arduino environment, I am not asking what is wrong with the posted code ( although I am open to any thoughtful answer ).
Do you find that your sort of answer encourages others interested in the arduino, beginner or advanced ( I have been programming for most of the time you have been alive, if you picture is not a fake ) or makes you better liked or looked up to on the forums?
Since my response I have checked out BE's Blog and he does not seem like such a bad guy, even a good guy. Did I catch him at a bad time. Not sure, cannot explain.
EB suggested I was in wrong forum this is clearly for beginners but "For problems with the Arduino itself" so I used it. About a page down is a forum for "...bugs you found" and unless someone can do a good job of explaining what I did wrong, I will probably post there as well.