[alnwlsn]

I kind of wish these all weren't called ESP32. ESP8266 and ESP8285 -> ESP32 made sense, but now we have 10+ different versions with different features and different architectures.

Kind of like how in every thread involving a Raspberry Pi Pico (RP2030/RP2350), there's always someone confusing it with the single board computer version.

The ESP32 (Classic, usually WROOM-32E) is still usually what comes to mind when I hear ESP32.

[peteforde]

You're fundamentally misunderstanding how MCU families work, I'm afraid.

There's not 10+ versions with different features. The word version strongly implies that there's an incremental progression over time, and they keep screwing up by adding and taking away modules. What jerks!

What's actually happening is that you have 4-5 different product lines that all share the same SDK, design philosophy, pricing structure, supply chain and support channels. Each one of these dimensions is extremely important to engineering teams designing products around them. It's not about hobbyists who are learning the ropes, although IMO they do a pretty good job of supporting those folks, too.

Within those lines (at this point, primarily S, C, H and P) you actually do have versions; for example, ESP32-S2 is no longer recommended for new designs because you should use ESP32-S3.

Ultimately, the lens you need to use to understand this stuff is: can I place an ESP32-labeled chip on my PCB and program it using the same SDK?

The same is true for the RP2XXX series of MCUs; if someone is confused by the difference between a microcontroller and a SBC then they might just be in the wrong place.

Bigger picture, some advice: when confronted by something like this, you will get further faster if you don't lead with the assumption that you have things figured out and everyone else is doing it wrong. Instead, keep an open mind and ask lots of questions. We're living in a golden era of enabling autodidacts but that's only true for folks who go long on humble curiosity.

[alnwlsn]

Lots of assumptions off a comment that is mostly just me stating my preference for short and unique part numbers. Nothing would be wrong with ESP32xx ESP33xx, ESP34xx, etc.

Espressif only have 312 SKUs [0]. You're telling me nobody could come up with a naming scheme where more than 2/3 of them don't have part numbers longer than 18 characters?

Doesn't really matter either way, but short part numbers do fit nicely in a BOM table without using really wide columns. (even though I usually find capacitors to have even longer names).

0 - https://products.espressif.com/#/product-selector

[peteforde]

You're going to really, really hate learning about STM32 MCUs.

https://www.digikey.ca/short/2v4t0n5m

[alnwlsn]

Haha, that I did! I spent a good while narrowing down that very list to pick one of my first ones out last year. By coincidence, I ran into the very same part number in a completely different circumstance a few months later. What are the chances of that!? Did help me feel that I hadn't picked out a real oddball one though.

Part number was still just 15 characters, and that's enough to specify if you want the tape and reel version. Not that anyone's counting :).

I guess those long part numbers do get burned into your head after a while after all.

[simgt]

You really come across as condescending and patronizing.

[peteforde]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Honestly, I just know what I'm talking about.

[nancyminusone]

Thats an easy mistake to make when you reuse the series name of your first chip and decide it's gonna be the family name now.

[peteforde]

That's simply not what happened, at all.

You're seeing either incompetence or conspiracy when the opposite is true.

[reaperducer]

I kind of wish these all weren't called ESP32. ESP8266 and ESP8285 -> ESP32 made sense, but now we have 10+ different version

They've been hanging around with Sony.

Apple: AirPods

Sony: WMDF559J649Q-1

[volemo]

I can’t say Apple’s naming approach is perfect. Those AirPods you’ve mentioned are actually “ AirPods Pro 2 with MagSafe Charging Case (USB-C)” or something.

[pantalaimon]

But it's the same scheme as STM32, EFM32, GD32, …

[vitally3643]

Yes and those schemes are just as bad as Espressif's

[yonatan8070]

It's like these for other families too, you've got your STM32, then you can get the sub-models ranging from entry-level STM32C0 to the full Linux chips like the STM32MP2, with lots of options in the middle

[randyrand]

It signals ESP-IDF compatibility

[JCTheDenthog]

They can signal that with numbers other than 32, the "ESP" part is what matters.

[9rx]

ESP-IDF is only compatible with the ESP32 range of devices, not all ESP-prefixed devices, so "ESP" alone is not sufficient information to satisfy the earlier comment.

[kelnos]

Sure, but there's nothing in the name "ESP-IDF" that inherently means it can only support ESP32 devices. It could also support a new theoretical ESP33 device.

(I don't have an issue with Espressif's ESP32-* naming scheme, but I don't think the ESP-IDF angle is a good argument for not changing it.)

[9rx]

Of course. There is no name that could inherently mean anything. Words are all made up and arbitrary.

[Etheryte]

Showing up in search results, or in this day and age LLM results, is still king. If your famous product is known as the ESP32, it doesn't hurt sales to spin other products off the same line. It might hurt clarity, glance value and many other things, but it will drive people to you.

[brokensegue]

Amusingly you just conflated the pico (a dev board) with its chip (rp2040)

[andrewstuart]

And toss away the brand name ?

[asadm]

it's a marketing thing now