 | | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
| (...) Exactly. (...) Yes, that's good. (...) One issue would be the potential merging of nqc/rcxcc since rcxcc is really a front end to nqc and shares the same language/constraints/etc. This is really a matter of philosophy - separate groups means (...) (26 years ago, 7-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
| (...) Well, I want the resolution that's most beneficial to the individual projects and most enjoyable for participants. Fine resolution is good as long as it lives up to the promise of providing for more focused discussions but bad if it is so fine (...) (26 years ago, 14-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
| (...) I agree with your gut- go with one group at first. I suspect it will be a relatively quiet group anyway. Dave (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | RE: Robotics sub-groups
|
| (...) As the creator? of HFORTH, I would LOVE to have a gruop focused on it. As it stands I am up to my eyeballs in paying consulting work and my family, and barely have enough time to keep development going. Markus has done a great job on LegOS and (...) (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
| This is just my opinion, but I don't think that the creation of separate groups for legos or h8forth would be a good idea right now. Although a dedicated group to discuss alternative firmware is a good idea, I think overspecializing it right now (...) (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | RE: Robotics sub-groups
|
| (...) Ralph, which makes the most sense for the group name? Ending it in .h8hforth or .hforth or .forth? How narrow or wide of a scope is most suitable to the project? I gather from your source that the "h8" component is derived directly from (...) (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
| I also think that RcxCC can perfectly live in the nqc group. One suggestion: it might be good to have a more general announcement group such that e.g. new releases of RcxCC can also be announced to people that are not yet using nqc. Something like (...) (26 years ago, 15-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
| Hi Todd, I've received several requests to set up a dedicated legOS mailing list. A while ago, you suggested setting up a subgroup, and I'd like to take you up on your offer. Could you create something on the lines of lugnet.robotics.legOS? Thanks, (...) (26 years ago, 16-Feb-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
| I would like to see at least one of these. It seems that there are several legOS-related projects ongoing and I'm sure people would like to avoid duplicating work (egcs-1.1.1 patches, libgcc.a, etc.). legOS is at the point in its development where (...) (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Robotics sub-groups
|
| (...) Following is some rationale on the namings of the 2 new groups created tonight: One thing I missed earlier which is clearer now with all the Droid-dev-kit discussions going on: .sw is potentially ambiguous... To a new or casual user, does it (...) (26 years ago, 19-Feb-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.robotics)
| |
