Since no doubt many people will be eager to get into robotics, this will be a repository for useful textbooks, articles, toolkits, programming IDE's, CAD tools, simulators, et cetera that will be useful for a robotics engineer. This should include beginner, intermediate, and expert level resources (please specify which).

This is intended to be a list, but please try not to go overboard, e.g. don't copy and paste the results of searching "robotics" on Amazon. Include only resources that you have personal experience or knowledge of. It would also help if you could provide a brief but useful description of it (maybe one particular textbook focuses more on feedback controls, or maybe one may be more theoretical than most. In general, something that avoids the reader having to google each one and see if it's what they're looking for).

Please do not create resource questions on the main site asking for websites, books, courses, word-lists, or other "shopping recommendations", the question will be downvoted, closed and possibly deleted. Resource related questions are off-topic for robotics.

If you are looking for a particular resource that you do not see on this list, the appropriate place to ask is almost certainly the robotics Chatroom.

Likewise, ask in the chatroom if you have a resource you would like to add to the list, or if you have other questions. The small group that maintains this list overlaps quite a bit with those you will likely find in the chatroom.


  • Each answer covers a particular category.
  • Where relevant, state whether the material is suited to a beginner, intermediate or advanced audience.
  • Don't include links to any illegal/copyright violating content, or sites that host such content.
  • Follow our community rules on self-promotion.
  • Keep your entries as succinct as possible to maintain a easy-to-follow list format.
  • Add the resources in alphabetical order so they're easier to find.
  • $\begingroup$ Agreed, how do you make a question CW? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 24, 2012 at 1:05
  • $\begingroup$ I thought it used to be a checkbox when you created the question, just like you can CW an answer, but I may be misremembering. I'll flag it and make the suggestion. $\endgroup$
    – Mark Booth
    Commented Oct 24, 2012 at 1:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Mark You can no longer mark a q CW unless you're a mod, see blog.stackoverflow.com/2011/08/the-future-of-community-wiki $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 24, 2012 at 8:21
  • $\begingroup$ Note that Mathematics meta has a similar CW question called List of Generalizations of Common Questions for aggregating faq tagged questions. There all of the important content is in the CW question itself. $\endgroup$
    – Mark Booth
    Commented Oct 24, 2012 at 12:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'm opting to not convert this to CW at this time. If nothing else, the two answers so far dispute whether this is an appropriate place for the question. I personally think a tag wiki is a great place for collecting resources that can be curated and amended via suggested edits. Check out the C++ tag wiki on Stack Overflow, for example, or the Scala tag wiki. $\endgroup$
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented Oct 24, 2012 at 16:22
  • $\begingroup$ We have just received the first question on the main site on this topic: robotics.stackexchange.com/questions/397/…. Any ideas what tag the most generic robotics resources can be added to? $\endgroup$
    – ronalchn
    Commented Nov 14, 2012 at 12:45

2 Answers 2


I feel that this post is unnecessary and not relevant for the meta of this site. Meta is for talking about the site, not as a refuge for questions which may be NC on main. It's not necessary that every question must find a place on the network (something learnt very quickly when dealing with migrations :S ), here's an example where that's applicable.

After the site has matured, we may want to consider making a question analogous to this one on Physics on the main site, but that probably would be discouraged as well.


As Manishearth suggests, rather than trying to make meta.robotics something it isn't and shouldn't be, we should probably concentrate on working out what needs to go into the FAQ.

This is, after all, one of The 7 Essential Meta Questions of Every Beta.

Things like beginners resources guides could make excellent FAQ entries, and since these entries will need to be developed here on meta anyway, your question is still relevant, just in a slightly different way. If you want to modify this to be explicitly about creating entries on these topics for the FAQ, I would be happy to include this question in my question: The 7 Essential Meta Questions for Robotics Stack Exchange, which attempts to summarise the resources we are building to answer those questions.

Having now seen Anna Lear♦'s comment on this question opting not to community wikify it and suggesting we use a tag wiki instead, I would wholeheartedly support that suggestion. The C++ and Scala tag wikis on Stack Overflow, demonstrate how well this technique can work especially as anyone can suggest edits to tag wikis. Indeed it's actually a great way for people new to stack exchange to get their first few points of reputation.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .