 | | Re: Programming the RCX... —Steve Baker
|
| | | (...) There certainly is some kind of a Java implementation for RCX. I havn't used it though...most people start off with NQC (Not Quite C) which is a very good starting point...then if you need more, dump the RCX firmware and replace it with (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Programming the RCX... —Michael F. Aube
|
| | | | | Steve, Thanks for the reply. I was thinking more along the lines of abstraction and simplification versus a pure visual language. Something that would make programming an RCX alot easier with respect to range checking for valid values, such as motor (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Programming the RCX... —Steve Baker
|
| | | | | | (...) Ah - OK. (...) I think that might just be overkill for a system as simple as the RCX. There are only three motor outputs - and you have no direct control over speed or angles - you can only say "forwards", "reverse", "brake" or "freewheel" (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Programming the RCX... —Dean Hystad
|
| | | | | (...) I have to disagree. I personally have three fairly significant robotic applications in the field which were developed using a visual programming language. I must confess that the language was not purely visual. The software IC components were (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Programming the RCX... —Steve Baker
|
| | | | | | (...) Connecting data paths between conventionally programmed chunks is not the same thing as "programming". (...) Yeah - *theoretically* - but in practice, people don't do that. (...) But it's still not a visual programming language...it doesn't (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Programming the RCX... —Dean Hystad
|
| | | | | | (...) I have hard time seeing how taking simple constructs and organizing them into something which exhibits a behavior not anticipated by the author of the constructs is not programming. How does it differ from arranging textual tokens in a (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Programming the RCX... —Dean Hystad
|
| | | | | | (...) I love responding to my own post. I just checked out you website and see you are an explorer with an open mind (at least an open source mind). I, however, am an ass. Sorry (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Programming the RCX... —Julian Gomez
|
| | | | (...) National Instruments would disagree with you. Their product Labview is a tremendous success, requiring a marketing machine the size of Unigraphics'. Plenty of "real" world programs have been built with Labview. For those not familiar: Labview (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Programming the RCX... —Mike McFarlane
|
| | | | In addition there are versions of ladder logic which are used in PLCs in millions of industrial applications. I would classify ladder logic as visual. There are also some UML (Unified Modelling Language) applications such as Rhapsody that allow you (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Programming the RCX... —Mike McFarlane
|
| | | | oops, should have read the rest of the thread ;-( sorry (...) (24 years ago, 9-Apr-01, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
