I had to go to ebay to find a used one.

It is a way of being able to learn and use basic electronics and also do something functional with them as well as learn how to code.

The person I replied to did not mention anything about what was included in the arduino kits, just that they refused to consider them at all.

> If you can define any logic function you want in code, there's no need to discuss wiring 74xx gates to each other.

How is wiring 74xx gates together more or less applicable to basic electronic circuits than an 8bit CPU breakout board?

The focus is on using a computer to interface with sensors, LED displays, etc. Not learning analog circuitry. It doesn't include any capacitors or inductors, for example.

Do you think someone would rather learn how to make an LC and then look at it do nothing, or make something that can sense when it is light out and open the curtains? I don't know, dismissing a kit because it interfaces with a computer seems a bit like a 1950s stodgy teacher who will hit a kid with a ruler if they think they are having fun learning.

It's missing capacitors, too. You cannot build RLC circuits without resistors, inductors, and capacitors. Google "RLC circuits" if you don't know what they are. RLC circuits are analogous to mass-spring-damper systems, the math is identical. It's certainly easier to study them with electronics than with building the mechanical equivalent.

> dismissing a kit because it interfaces with a computer

I'm dismissing a kit about interfacing with a computer because the person I want to give it to wants to learn analog electronics, and the analog electronics kits are no longer available.

If you want to learn digital electronics, those computer kits are fine for that. Of course, there is very little math involved with digital electronics, and that appeals to some.

I'm not sure if you are purposefully trying to be insulting, but I want to give the benefit of the doubt so I will chalk it up to poor reading comprehension.

Actually, I remember interacting with you before, and you have consistently spoken to me and others in a similar condescending manner, so I will assume that you know exactly what you are doing.

LOL, you compared me to:

> a 1950s stodgy teacher

I love tech/electronics so I started from bottom upwards just fine, but I think for many students they'd much prefer "we can connect up these RGB leds to this Arduino and you can learn how to control them, then learn how LEDs and microcontrollers work at a higher level". Then, once they think it's cool and are interested, it's possible to introduce lower and lower level concepts to them.

Starting with resistance/capaticance/inductance/electrons in a wire etc etc is a good starting point but it has the prerequisite of a child already being intensely interested in the subject - all other children are gonna get bored.

But showing them what's it's possible to do "the easy way" first gets them interested, making it a lot easier to hold their interest when explaining how it all works at a lower level.

Yes. Encyclopedias of the day had a lot of this sort of information and so did DIY books.

I have a copy of Everything Within from about 1930 that has chapters on radio. In addition it tells you how to make a rectifier from scratch using just copper sheets and various chemicals.

See also, for instance, The Art of Glass-Blowing by T.-P. Danger, 1831

"Artists and Students of the Experimental Sciences will find this work adapted to aid them effectually in the economical preparation of their Apparatus; and persons who would willingly occupy their leisure hours in practising the charming art of working Glass and Enamels with the Blowpipe, but who have hitherto been deterred by the anticipated expense of the instruments, and the imaginary difficulties of the undertaking, are taught herein the simplest, most expeditious, least expensive, and most effectual methods of working Glass into every variety of useful or fanciful device."

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/55266

Not how to make glass I grant you.