Using MicroPython with Thonny instead of Arduino IDE (C/C++) for ESP8266 and ESP32 brings several practical benefits, especially for learners, rapid prototyping, and high-level development. Here’s a breakdown comparing MicroPython + Thonny vs. Arduino IDE:
________________________________________
π§ 1. Ease of Use β Especially with Thonny
β
MicroPython + Thonny:
β’ Beginner-friendly IDE: Thonny is a lightweight, easy-to-use Python IDE perfect for newcomers.
β’ Plug & play: Just install MicroPython firmware, connect board via USB, and start coding.
β’ Built-in REPL terminal: You can run code line-by-line, see results immediately, and debug easily.
β’ No compilation: Code runs instantly without lengthy compile-upload cycles.
β Arduino IDE:
β’ Requires C/C++ knowledge.
β’ More setup: installing board packages, managing libraries, etc.
β’ Slower feedback loop: you must compile and upload every time you test a change.
________________________________________
β‘ 2. Faster Prototyping
β
MicroPython:
β’ Write scripts like Python β dynamic, high-level, and concise.
β’ Ideal for testing sensors, networking, and logic without restarting the board every time.
β’ Upload multiple files (main.py, config.json, etc.) to the ESP’s internal filesystem via Thonny.
β Arduino:
β’ Each change needs a full rebuild.
β’ Single monolithic sketch file.
β’ No persistent file system support (unless you manually use SPIFFS or LittleFS).
________________________________________
π§ 3. More Human-Friendly for Learning and Education
β
MicroPython + Thonny:
β’ Great for students or makers who already know Python (common in schools and universities).
β’ Easier syntax, less boilerplate code.
β’ Live variable inspection in Thonny during execution.
β Arduino IDE:
β’ C++ can be intimidating.
β’ Pointers, memory management, and compile-time errors increase complexity for beginners.
________________________________________
π 4. Built-in Networking
β
MicroPython:
β’ Easily control Wi-Fi, sockets, HTTP servers/clients with a few lines.
β’ Example:
β’ import network
β’ wlan = network.WLAN(network.STA_IF)
β’ wlan.active(True)
β’ wlan.connect(‘SSID’, ‘password’)
β Arduino:
β’ Requires external libraries (WiFi.h, HTTPClient.h), more code, more debugging.
β’ Less intuitive for high-level networking tasks.
________________________________________
π 5. Filesystem Support
β
MicroPython:
β’ Built-in filesystem (LittleFS or SPIFFS).
β’ You can upload Python scripts, HTML pages (for web servers), config files, logs, etc.
β’ Easily managed through Thonnyβs file browser.
β Arduino:
β’ Requires setting up filesystem manually.
β’ File editing is less convenient.
________________________________________
π 6. Interactive Debugging with REPL
β
MicroPython:
β’ Connect to the boardβs REPL via Thonny (or PuTTY).
β’ Run code live, inspect variables, try out functions.
β Arduino:
β’ Debugging is mostly via Serial.print().
β’ No live code execution or introspection.
________________________________________
π Comparison Table
Feature | MicroPython + Thonny | Arduino IDE (C++) |
---|---|---|
Language | Python (beginner-friendly) | C++ (lower-level) |
IDE | Thonny (simple + REPL) | Arduino IDE / PlatformIO |
File System Support | Yes (via Thonny UI) | Limited, needs setup |
Wi-Fi and Networking | Simple, built-in | Requires more setup/code |
Compile/Upload Time | Instant run (no compile) | Compiling + flashing required |
Debugging | Interactive REPL | Serial.print() debugging |
Suitable for Beginners | β Excellent | β Steeper learning curve |
Community Support | Strong | Very strong |
Performance | Slower (Python interpreted) | Faster (compiled C++) |
________________________________________
π Conclusion
If you’re:
β’ Learning to program microcontrollers,
β’ Rapidly prototyping IoT devices,
β’ Familiar with Python,
β’ Teaching students or working on quick experiments,
MicroPython with Thonny is the better choice.
If you’re:
β’ Building performance-critical or production-grade firmware,
β’ Needing fine control over memory/timing,
β’ Comfortable with C/C++,
Then Arduino IDE or ESP-IDF might be more appropriate.

In my opinion, bias in comparing two products causes problems in the decision output and comparison result. In this context, I must say that despite the comparisons made in this article, it should be noted that different products always focus on a part of the work in a more specialized way, so the selection of the most appropriate solution for use in developing products with ESP boards is made based on the needs of the manufacturer and the product.