Subject:
|
RE: legOS and alternate operating systems [now off topic]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Dec 1998 22:40:39 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Norman Fair <NFAIR@GDI.NETnomorespam>
|
Viewed:
|
1097 times
|
| |
|
|
Actually, this does concern Legos programming. There is only so much
memory in the RCX, so you have to program very efficiently. You have to be
able to squeeze a program in there.
What I meant in my previous post is, when you linked in a "traditional"
library it only linked the routines you actually used, not the entire
library. But with object oriented you link in the entire class, even if
you only use one or two methods. Plus you have to link in all the classes
that the class you are using is inherited from. That can be a great deal
of overhead. The typical "Hello world" program for Windows using C is only
a couple kilobytes, about the same as a DOS version. If you write it in
C++ (worse yet, with Windows wrapping classes such as Microsoft Foundation
Classes), your program will start with at least 100k or more of size.
Sorry this is drifting from RCX/Cybermaster programming.
-----Original Message-----
From: Earle Clubb [SMTP:eclubb@vt.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 3:48 PM
To: Lego Robotics
Subject: RE: legOS and alternate operating systems [now off topic]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laurentino Martins [mailto:lmartins@marktest.pt]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 1998 3:25 PM
> To: stephen p spackman
> Cc: Lego-Robotics
> Subject: Re: legOS and alternate operating systems [now off topic]
>
>
> At 20:12 30-12-1998 Wednesday , you wrote:
> > Norman Fair wrote:
> >
> > > I don't know what language was used, but I'd guess it was • object oriented.
> > > Unlike older languages that only compile the routines that • are actually
> > > used, object oriented compiles everything. That's why a • program written in
> > > C++ is up to 100 times as large as the same C version.
> >
> > The implication of this statement is that 99% of a traditional C
> > programme was unused and discarded by the compiler. If so, there's
> > something mighty unusual about your coding style :-).
> >
> > My own suspicion is that in fact "object oriented design" as now
> > promulgated (and as distinct from old-school OO) is actually an
> > anti-methodology: it legitimates various kinds of ad hoc hacking - like
> > massive cut-and-paste "code reuse" (true code reuse having to do with
> > abstraction, not replication) - that are traditionally frowned upon by
> > academics but pandemic in industry.
> >
> > ...So along comes OO saying that everything you always did in industry
> > and got sneered at for is now ok - and you get an instant win on PR
> > (which is usually where languages win or die, sadly).
> >
> > It's also the case that nowadays *everyone* tries to use C++ while in
> > the old days C was something you "graduated" to after you already had a
> > full set of clues. And C++ is about five times more complex than C.
> >
> > Oh, and of course even I've been known to go, great, I can now BUY a gig
> > of RAM - let's use a BIG table....
> >
> > Ach, but I'm cynical in my old age.
>
>
> Don't force us mailing list subscribers to read your almost
> philosophical discussions about programming languages that have
> nothing to do with LEGO Robotics. You are waaaay out of topic!
>
> Thank you
>
>
> Laurentino Martins *<||:-)
[mailto:lau@mail.telepac.pt]
[http://www.terravista.pt/Enseada/2808/]
--
I, for one, happen to like an occasional OT discussion. If the subject
says
off topic, then it's probably off topic and you don't have to read it if
you
don't like off topic discussions. It only takes two seconds to push the
delete key and five seconds to set up a filter.
Earle
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
