Subject:
|
Re: Programming languages
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Feb 2001 20:38:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1684 times
|
| |
|
|
I can only speak from experience about programming languages that use the
standard firmware, since that's all I've used.
*Spirit.OCX (I've used VB and J++): The worst way to program in the standard
firmware. non-intuitive syntax (even if you replace the numbers with variable
names). lot's of ugly periods hanging around. I only learned/used this when I
was making VB programs for all of the robots in my book and putting them onto
the CD-ROM. Other than that I never use it. I'm sure some of the GUI
interfaces that people have made for use with the Spirit are pretty good, but I
haven't checked them out for more than a minute each.
*RCX Code: Graphical. OCX dependency. The easiest way to write a
quick-and-dirty sequential, simple-multitasking, and simple looping kinds of
programs. Not good for much else. Good for kids with low motor
skills/attention span. No variables (yet) besides a simple counter.
*NQC: There are some things that you can do with NQC that you can't do with
ROBOLAB (I'm not sure exactly what - maybe someone else can elaborate). Good
if you're already used to C. I first learned NQC when I translated all of
Dave's programs for his first book into ROBOLAB for his CD-ROM (check 'em out,
I included jpg's too). It took me a week, and it wasn't a pleasant experience
because I find ROBOLAB much more intuitive.
*ROBOLAB: Graphical, like a flowchart. Written in LabVIEW. No OCX dependency.
The best standard firmware solution in my _biased_ opinion. There are things
that you can do with ROBOLAB that you can't do with NQC (in an out-of-the-box
sense): Internet Communication, Graphing, Calculations on Data, Turn programs
into Web pages, etc. Very intuitive.
For non-standard-firmware languages, there is YBL (yellow brick logo) from the
media lab, legOS, pbForth, ... ??
In lugnet.robotics, John Barnes writes:
> What an interesting question, and I hope it solicits a comprehensive
> review from someone who has the breadth to understand and use them
> all.
>
> I use nqc all the time because it is SO easy. - thanks Dave!
>
> But, I would like the freedom offered by a development system
> which compiles directly to a native binary.
>
> It would seem that you have to be familiar with unix and its derivatives
> in order to be able to accomplish this. My attempts to use LegOS
> have been total failures. I have made the suggestion to one or two
> people that a CD-R with everything preconfigured to copy to your
> hard drive and run would make it much easier to get running. None
> of my offered bribes have worked though :(
>
> So, I wait with great interest to see what's out there.
>
> JB
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tobias Moller [SMTP:tobias.moller@telia.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 1:41 PM
> To: lugnet.robotics.rcx@lugnet.com
> Subject: Programming languages
> Just out of pure curiosity:
> How many different programming languages for the RCX exists?
> Which is the easiest/most advanced/best? (I know this is a matter of taste)
> And is there any language that does *not* use the LEGO firmware?
> --Tobias
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Programming languages
|
| (...) Dont forget Gordon's Brick Programmer (GBP) (though I still have to figure out what routines, tasks and etc. are) --Electro-- (...) (26 years ago, 15-Feb-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | RE: Programming languages
|
| What an interesting question, and I hope it solicits a comprehensive review from someone who has the breadth to understand and use them all. I use nqc all the time because it is SO easy. - thanks Dave! But, I would like the freedom offered by a (...) (26 years ago, 14-Feb-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
