Subject:
|
FLL not allowing NQC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 6 Mar 2005 22:44:21 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Stephen Johnson <diordna@macintoshdevelopersSPAMLESS.net>
|
Viewed:
|
2603 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
Mark Tarrabain wrote:
> 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 1 Reply:
 | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC
|
| (...) Not at all as far as any of my comments go. I can't speak for the other posters on this subject of course. But I do think it is high time that FLL reviewed this particular rule. I have been asked a number of times if AFOLs would be interested (...) (20 years ago, 6-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: RIS 2.0 Problems
|
| 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
