Subject:
|
Re: RIS 2.0 Problems
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 6 Mar 2005 21:04:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2512 times
|
| |
|
|
NQC bears a stronger resemblance to contemporary programming languages
than Lego's development tools do, and a person who is already familiar
with programming in any real computer programming language will probably
be more productive with NQC than with Lego's tools. This would
translate to what would be perceived by others as a competitive
advantage in using NQC, even though the actual advantage is that the
person is simply a better computer programmer, and would therefore
reflect poorly on Lego's offering of tools.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | FLL not allowing NQC
|
| Do you guys mind if I send them an email with some of your post snippets? I'm probably going to be assistant-coaching an FLL team next year, and I've never used anything *but* NQC, and I don't know how to get RoboLab. (...) (20 years ago, 6-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: RIS 2.0 Problems
|
| (...) The flaw in this sort of logic is the assumption that more productive programming leads to a more likely to win FLL robot. This is definitely not true. The far more likely scenario is this: experienced robot designer leads to more likely to (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
