Hi developer
Why don’t you put “Blynk.run();” in some timer interrupt so we will have more space in Loop () function ando delay will not have effect
I guess that you’re suggesting this because you have problems with the concepts of a clean void loop and using non-blocking timers?
It’s really bad programming practice to use blocking timers and to dump all of your code in the void loop, so even if the Blynk library was re-written (which I’m pretty sure isn’t possible using the approach you’ve suggested) then you’d still run-in to issues caused by following these bad coding practices.
There are a few situations where it’s difficult to avoid stuff in the void loop - waiting for data to arrive on a serial bus and using timing critical devices like RFID readers are common examples - but the majority of systems don’t require this type of coding.
If you’re really struggling with the timing critical type of sketch then using dual core processors like the ESP32 and pinning the tasks to different cores is probably the best approach.
Assuming that you’re not trying to do timing critical stuff then maybe you should share some info about what you’re trying to achieve, and why you’re struggling to achieve it?
Pete.
Hi
No, I’m advanced programmer and I really not often use delay() in my code. But a lot of users use it. This why I suggest to put Blynk.run under interrupt.
I know very few arduino programmers that use interrupt timers.
Just a suggest nothing else…