...has caused some minor confusion. I suggest "Example: " prefixed to the front. (this would apply to all future example code and example circuit stickies)
On a personal note, I don't think the subject is "functional". We need a subject line that succinctly tells a new user, "if you're having this problem, read this".
At first, I thought "Example: Blink Without Delay * 2" would make a good subject. But, I don't think "Blink Without Delay" has any meaning to a new user. Maybe "delay is Bad. Use this instead."? What about "Delay without delay"? Too corny?
Whatever.... The wording it is not earthshattering important. Considering the sticky title is to get people to look there rather than post the same question, the words in the sticky would match the words they are most likely to look for. Here is a suggestion
On the contrary, I found that post and the Arduino Example http://arduino.cc/en/Tutorial/BlinkWithoutDelay
Very useful and had no issue with the wording. I think it's rather obvious you can use it for other things than just blinking LEDs. I feel that it is important enough to add a new function to the Arduino Lib. Timing is very important in most of my stuff so using delays all the time is out of the question.
Several days ago I reported the "Blink Two LEDs, independent, no delay" sticky thread mainly because the original link to where you were supposed comment went to a 'reply' page that didn't give me a clue as to where to find any other comments. The moderator subsequently fixed that link.
I also commented that I didn't think the thread belonged in the Programming Questions section of the forum and the moderator asked where I thought it belonged. It looks like this thread is a good place to discuss that question.
I hate to say it, but what we really need is another forum section. It seems to me that topics such as the one under consideration here belong in a 'Frequently-Asked Questions' section. Only forum moderators should be able to post in this FAQ section so that it cannot be misused. The old forum had a open 'Frequently-Asked Questions' section which seemed to be used for anything and everything except frequently asked questions, perhaps because of its subheading 'For issues that don't fit in any other board'.
Another problem that I had with the original "Blink Two LEDs, independent, no delay" sticky thread was that it reminded me of "Carnac the Magnificant" who some of you will recall would give the answers to questions having never before seen the actual questions themselves. This post, in it's original form, gave the code to solve a problem that was never really stated. You really have to describe the problem before the solution makes much sense.
That is what I call a good constructive critisism. Thank you.
1: Appologies for having the misspelled link.
2: It does belong under Programming. The intention is all about handling the programming task.
3: FAQ yes. It all depends on the Forum owners have enough time, or trust a selection of moderators (with enough time and energy) A "dead" FAQ is worse than no FAQ
3a: Or write access to the locked sections (where the tutorials are) for a few more so that good suggestions and in particular error reports actually get actioned upon (after due debate and dilligence).
4: The explanation for the post. Yes, CodingBadly was following up on that.
And my understanding or idea was that the sticky would act as a quick ref for the many very similar questions on the delay()-less programming when it is more than one item.
The sticky was not mine alone - it is a collaborative effort
That is what I call a good constructive critisism.
OK - here's some more! It's not criticism but I hope it is constructive.
And my understanding or idea was that the sticky would act as a quick ref for the many very similar questions on the delay()-less programming when it is more than one item.
The wording of this phrase brings out a thought that I was working on last night but didn't have time to complete. Here is the essence of what I was trying to formulate for submission. 'Blink without delay' is not the same as 'Blink without delay()'.
The real problem, which non-techies might not realize, is that the use of delay() ties up the processor while you are waiting whereas other techniques do not - and this is what should be emphasized somewhere. It is not the delay that is being replaced, it is the technique for determining the delay that is being changed.
The original 'Blink without delay' shows you how blink an LED while doing something else and this version (whatever you decide to call it), shows you how to blink two LEDs independently while doing something else. Throwing in an extra LED, while interesting, informative, and useful, does not add much to understanding the original problem and it's solution.
What needs to be worked on next is how to demonstrate the use of the delay()-less technique for something or some things other than blinking LEDs.
The sticky was not mine alone - it is a collaborative effort
Yes - I figured that out after the link was fixed.
It seems to me that topics such as the one under consideration here belong in a 'Frequently-Asked Questions' section.
Perhaps in a "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions" section.
Yes, you probably would have to explain the details to the perpetrators of this website. They obviously couldn't figure it out with the implementation in the old forum.
A lot of big words being thrown around but no real problem. What exactly is the issue here? The Blink without delay() is an advanced coding technique to perform a delayed task without using the delay() function. Why should it not be a sticky? simply because some might not understand it?