Subject:
|
Re: RIS 2.0 Problems
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 6 Mar 2005 16:00:39 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Mr S <SZINN_THE1@YAHOO.ihatespamCOM>
|
Viewed:
|
3029 times
|
| |
|
|
I think that something might be overlooked here? To
ensure that all contestants are playing on a level
field, it is necessary to ensure they have the same
elements for building their competition systems. To do
this, it necessarily requires that development tools
support a fixed set of functions, calls, and encoding
so that no team has something the others do not.
By adding Java or NCQ, the competition judges lose
control of this and no longer can ensure that the code
generated could also have been generated by LEGO
development tools.
As it happens, there is an independant firmware that
supports the standard LEGO functions, but has new ones
of its own, and on top of this works up to 10x faster
than the LEGO firmware. So using NQC could give an
advantage that others do not have, even if you can't
use it on a Mac.
Have you ever thought to load and run NQC, and take
its output and load it in the LEGO development
environment?
Seems to me that there is some complaining without
experience of how 'equal' it might make you if you had
NQC or other development environment.
I also have to say that its a grand thing, to hear a
Mac user moan about their Mac not being able to do
what a lowly PC does :)
Just a couple of thoughts
Cheers
--- Mark Tarrabain <markt@lynx.SPAMBLOCK.net> wrote:
> Steve Baker wrote:
> > More annoying is that the Lego tools only work on • the Microsoft operating
> > system - and this actively discriminates against • teams who might use Linux
> > or some other operanting system on their PC's - • that effectively blocks
> > some teams from entering - which is massively • unfair (particularly in
> > international competition - some non-US countries • have schools that use
> > Linux exclusively).
>
> That, my friend, hits the nail _SQUARELY_ on the
> head. This issue could
> in theory be addressed by them producing a new,
> completely platform
> independant development environment (perhaps itself
> being done in Java,
> so that it would work everywhere Java works, at
> least).
>
> Simply allowing NQC would reflect poorly on Lego
> because NQC could be
> perceived by people to offer a competitive advantage
> over Lego's
> standard offerings on account of NQC's higher
> similarity to more
> contemporary programming languages.
>
> > > Mark
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: RIS 2.0 Problems
|
| (...) Yes. I agree. (...) Yes - I agree with that too. The 'fixed set of functions' are the set of byte codes that the Lego firmware supports. How you put those together is a matter of what tools you use to design the robot. NQC does not somehow (...) (20 years ago, 6-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
114 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
