 | | intro and question —Laura O'Grady
|
| | | Hello everyone! I have been semi-lurking on the list for a few months, with the occasional post. I have only recently gotten into Mindstorms and wanted to ask about moving on to another language to program the RCX with. I have no programming skills (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | RE: intro and question —Ralph Hempel
|
| | | | | (...) Which is funny, because I read the webpage and it turns out you need to download 23MB of stuff and it ends up installing NQC on your system... (...) If you're a beginning programmer, I'd go with NQC for the simple reason that there are lots of (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: intro and question —Steve Baker
|
| | | | | | (...) Forth isn't by any stretch of the imagination a good language to learn as your *first* language - although it *is* pretty cool for writing embedded system software on teeny-tiny processors once you grok the whole programming thing. ---...--- (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: intro and question —Jim Choate
|
| | | | | | | (...) It's a fine language as long as the potential user understands how to use dual-stack based languages/systems (ie TIL's). I suggest folks who want to learn Forth get themselves a good grounding in RPN. From there it's the same old same old with (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: intro and question —Erik Olson
|
| | | | | | | (...) Forth was my second language (after Basic). The hours I spent at user group lectures sweating the fine points of stack management and memory allocation were a fabulous preparation for programming. If you survive the experience, that is. You (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: intro and question —Matt Lawrence
|
| | | | | | (...) There's been enough research to suggest that Forth is an excellent first language that I would disagree. As a second or third language, there's much more to unlearn. -- Matt (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: intro and question —John Barnes
|
| | | | | Try Gordon's brick programmer. It's an interesting halfway house between Lego's graphical but rather limited offering and an actual written language like NQC. It's a free download, I just don't remember where it comes from at the moment. Maybe (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: intro and question —Doug *The WebMeister* Wilcox
|
| | | | | It's been quite a while since I've posted (dagnabbit, it's been too long since I've built any robots), but I tackled the same issues in my earlier programming days. I tackled JavaScript and NQC at the same time. I found that they were very (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: intro and question —Steve Baker
|
| | | | | (...) Well, without doubt the most popular programming language for RCX (apart of the original Lego software) is NQC. It's easiest to use and most commonly seen - which means there are the most people out there to help you. However, if you really (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: intro and question —Jim Choate
|
| | | | | | (...) I have to disagree strongly. Learning to program is hard, irrespective of the system. Whether the system is embedded or not doesn't effect the control structures, data structures, and algorithms that a programmer must learn. I learned on a (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: intro and question —Steve Baker
|
| | | | | | (...) The problem with learning on an embedded system is not *what* you have to learn - its *how* you have to learn it. If you make any of a dozen basic programming mistakes on an RCX, what's going to happen? Well, maybe a motor will turn on when it (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: intro and question —Jim Choate
|
| | | | | | (...) You change a bit, ask questions, re-write the code to solve the problem differently. Then go back and figure out what conceptual mistake was made the first time through. This is EXACTLY the same process you go through on a PC. (...) By trying (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: intro and question —Dave Baum
|
| | | | | (...) The paper you refer to cites two basic reasons why he considers NQC difficult for novices: poor error messages and a command line interface. The first criticism is true, and probably not going to be remedied anytime soon. Most people get the (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: intro and question —Wayne Watson
|
| | | | | | Hi, I have your 1.0/1.5 book and just got around to looking at the CD. Does the 2.0 book contain new items? Are there pix of the Construction Techniques chapter of the book on the CD or web? Those would be very handy for teaching a robotics class. (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: intro and question —Dave Baum
|
| | | | | | (...) Consider the 2nd edition more of a "refresh" of the 1st edition rather than lots of new material. Most of the update has been with respect to RCX Code getting a lot better with 2.0. These new programs will be availble for download, so even (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: intro and question —Wayne Watson
|
| | | | | | | I'd be very interested in the chapter 13 change, if it is available in the next 48 hours. I'd be also be interested in any changes to LabView programs with the robots in chapters 5 through 16. (...) -- Wayne T. Watson (121.015 Deg. W, 39.262 Deg. N, (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: intro and question —Dave Baum
|
| | | | | | | | (...) It's not going to happen in the next 48 hours. More like a month or two. I wasn't going to do anything about the Robolab programs. (I never wrote them in the first place - Ben Erwin put the together) Dave (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: intro and question —Wayne Watson
|
| | | | | | | | Too bad about the RoboLab stuff. In general, it looks to me there's a market there for a book on LabView and Lego MS. I did a quick search on Amazon for LabView, and I don't think I hit any Lego/LabView books--well, maybe two. I think the Teacher's (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | sugestion about next book... —MiB
|
| | | | | | Would it not be nice to have a project book about all the other methods to Hack screw mindstrom in other languages/methods too? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Baum" <dbaum@enteract.com> To: <lego-robotics@crynwr.com> Sent: Wednesday, July (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: intro and question —Dean Hystad
|
| | | | (...) Robolab is a wonderful tool for working with the RCX. I agree that the interface is unusual, but it accurately reflects the way that National Instruments (creator of LabView, the father of Robolab) views the world. They see everything as a (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | RE: intro and question —Ralph Hempel
|
| | | | (...) Dean, all of these points are valid. I first learned to program on my HP-41CV calculator, which is a wierd mix of Forth and Assembler. In the end, the deep knowledge of what's happening at the chip level makes me a much better and versatile (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
