 | | Re: Mindstorms NXT programming languages
|
|
(...) Dan, Once you get your hands on an NXT I encourage you to try. Sounds like you have considered the costs and it might work. Don't wait for permission from us! Just try it. Often when people say it can't be done, I just consider it a challenge. (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Mindstorms NXT programming languages
|
|
(...) Code, may be. But I can easily imagine large data usage in many applications. Example 1: Robot that can play pre-recorded messages. "Danger, Will Robinson!". A robot that can talks base on what it encounters is both fun and help debugging. (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Mindstorms NXT programming languages
|
|
(...) Steve, Would you say that the above paragraph is a well thought out, coherent argument? Have you ever actually read a post by John or myself where we claim that LEGO can do no wrong? Or are you simply supposing that because we disagree with (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Mindstorms NXT programming languages
|
|
What you say below is entirely true, up to a point. Note that most Lego stuff (and this is true outside Lego -- it applies to most controller code I've seen for robotics) is now using bytecode interpreters. The memory advantages far outweigh the CPU (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Mindstorms NXT programming languages
|
|
(...) Steve, no matter how you look at it, adding that greater potential would have increased the price. Not just the $10 or whateva for the memory, but the extra development time needed to integrate it. Hell they could have just included a (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
