|
|
 | | Re: What I would do (2)
|
| (...) The optimum solution would be both - provide a new API that gets the most out of the new firmware, but an optional "compatability layer" that adds what is necessary to provide an API compatable with the RCX. Note that I'd vote to get the new (...) (20 years ago, 31-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: What I would do (2)
|
| (...) As the brick, sensor, motors... are quite different, direct portability is not of paramount importance for me. So I vote for performance. Philo (20 years ago, 31-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: What I would do (2)
|
| (...) I like this concept, but what if in the case of NQC the new firmware turns out to be such a radically different design that it makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry over very much of the rather large API built into NQC to (...) (20 years ago, 31-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: What I would do (2)
|
| (...) <snippage> (...) Ed, can you point me to the sort of things you have read which make you believe the NXT software and its underlying firmware will provide the sort of control and flexibility which such things as NQC and alternate firmwares (...) (20 years ago, 31-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: Feb. Wired is out
|
| (...) Great article, with some good pictures. Also online at: (URL) a sidebar on Lego Factory, Paul Sinasohn LUGNET #115 BAYLUG (20 years ago, 30-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
|
