Results 761 – 780 of about 14000.
|
Search took 0.01 CPU seconds.
|
|
 | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) we must definitely remain compatible (at least partially) with Spirit.ocx protocols. (...) outside world with endless possibilities, and processing power that it will never be able to match! (...) already been done for us. And please, do not (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|  
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) I don't think I am underestimating the amount of work, actually.Just because a language has a GUI toolkit does NOT make it user friendly or portable. (...) Then it's not self contained on TWO counts. One, as you mentioned, you need NQC to get (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: interest in JVM porting effort
|
| (...) - I agree there will be two projects - if both projects get off the ground in the first place - Partly I disagree with your characterization of the other project; I do not think the goals are quite as stated. The other group wants to (I think) (...) (25 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: Some comments (long)
|
| (...) <snip> Mark and John's messages this morning look like the beginnings of two separate developments for the RCX, both of which have the potential to satisfy the needs of many who are dissatisfied with the current firmware. Hopefully both ideas (...) (25 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) I agree, that would make pbForth much more appealing if the source could be compiled on a pc in a nice gui environment and then the bytecode loaded into the rcx. Not only could someone enhance the gui front end as Mark has suggested, but (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| I say let us go ahead and make this JVM for the RCX. I am in, Any other volunteers? As I have previously announced (in the LegOS) group that I was going to do this one person has already agreed to volunteer. As a side note take a look at: (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| Mark Tarrabain: Dave Baum: John A. Tamplin: Kekoa Proudfoot: Ralph Hempel: Luis Villa: et al: In the late '60s I had a '57 VW Bug ... absolutely loved it! But, it didn't go fast enough. So I replaced the engine with a 1500 cc. model. It went faster, (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| I've been reading all this discussion of an new OS for the RCX (or whatever it will be) with great interest. I know I'm out of this discussion/development from the start due not having much low level knowledge on what you are all talking about, but (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Some more comments and suggestions.
|
| (...) I concur with this opinion. I realize that the subject may be a bit prevalent right now but the alternative would be to develop a separate list for alternative firmware discussion, and I don't know how viable that would be. What follows is a (...) (25 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| Mark Tarrabain skrev i meddelandet <372E220C.D2F9AD52@l....bc.ca>... (...) But the whole point with FORTH is that it is self-contained, and the 'compiling' part is an integrated part of the language (normally quite small), and _used_ in programs, (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| Java is a very good language, but *NOT* a very good choice of language for robot control. Java's greatest strength is its portability, but portable programs in hardware like the RCX, are not likely to accomplish much. (Have you ever tried to write a (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: Some comments (long)
|
| (...) Obviously you have spent much more time deciphering the ROM than I have. I wasn't aware that the ROM supported native threads, only multiplexing the bytecode streams it executed. How can replacement firmware hook into this sensor-processing (...) (25 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) I believe that a new bytecode instruction set should provide native support for non-integer numbers of some type. Whether this is implemented as ieee single precision numbers or as 32-bit fixed-point numbers is an issue that may be up for some (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: firmdl question
|
| (...) I believe the units are tens of firmware bytes downloaded already. Oh, to point out the obvious, this is a ROM thing, not a firmdl thing. -Kekoa (25 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | interest in JVM porting effort
|
| I realize there is still ongoing discussion about the "next generation" OS for the RCX, but it appears there are two immovable camps. One camp wants to do the minimum work possible and come up with an incremental upgrade to the existing firmware. (...) (25 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: Some comments (long)
|
| (...) Not that I disagree with the elegance of being able to define a class that implements a new way of reading a sensor; however, I thought I'd point out two issues you might want to consider: First, the ROM already contains a significant amount (...) (25 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) I see what you like about having a FixedPoint type and being able to say a = b.Multiply(c) This gives you the flexibility to add modules as you need them by dumping all the work onto the compiler, which is not a bad place if you are not the (...) (25 years ago, 5-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.536)
|
|
| | Re: Some comments (long)
|
| (...) Assuming you use the ROM to receive things, which would be prudent in terms of space but not strictly necessary, the lengths of the opcodes in the message receiving code are determined by the lowest three bits of the opcode: 0 means length 0, (...) (25 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| |
|
firmware
(score: 1.535)
|
More: Next Page >>
|
