Subject:
|
Re: Programming the RCX...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Apr 2001 04:39:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
983 times
|
| |
|
|
> > I could see one building an abstract software model of the RCX, and then
> > manipulating that model visually or otherwise to produce a working RCX
> > program in Scheme or any other available language for the RCX.
>
> Well, I guess that's possible (and somewhat what the Lego provided programming
> software does).
>
> There has been a *long* history of attempts at visual programming languages -
> but without exception, they have failed. All programs of any size in the "real"
> world are built with conventional text-based languages.
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 written in Pascal. But the application which
was composed of thousands of these components was configured completely
using graphical tools. Data flow interconnections between the components
were made by drawing a line from an output pin of one component to an input
pin of another. Execution scheduling was based on data flowing through
these connection. A procedure was executed when it received data on all of
it's input pints. The tool also supported creating complex software IC's
out of simpler ones. So theoretically, once the grammar was built up of
enough simple components, you could do away with text based programming
altogether.
Also, the company I work for provides a National Instruments Labview front
end for configuring some of our simulation and testing equipment. It is not
the only interface, but is very popular in labs filled primarily with
electrical and mechanical engineers. There are still a lot of people in the
world who are more comfortable with a circuit diagram than a program listing.
Finally, don't forget the millions of systems controlled by Programmable
Logic Controllers (PLC's) running ladder programs. I guess all those
machines out there building the airplanes we fly in, the cars we drive, the
appliances we use, or processing the materials for the house we live in must
not be "real". I won't make a strong statement without numbers to back it
up, but I would bet the number of computers running programs developed using
a visual or graphical paradigm far exceeds the number of mainframes,
workstations, and PCs combined.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Programming the RCX...
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Programming the RCX...
|
| (...) 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)
|
12 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
|
|
|
|
