 | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
On Tue, March 8, 2005 7:29 pm, John Hansen said: (...) ... (...) Last night, I went home and opened a "LEGO RIS Code" file in a text editor. Turns out it's a very nicely formatted Mindscript file. I'm interested to know if there's a good reason to (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote: <snip> (...) I can't believe you said that!! :p Dave K (20 years ago, 9-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) Is there a good reason to allow MindScript and not NQC? No. With MindScript and LASM you can do anything you can do with NQC. But there are *very* few experienced MindScript programmers out there to teach the language to FLL team members. (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) Yes, there is a good reason to not allow NQC. It's not produced by Lego. Period. (20 years ago, 9-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
On Wed, March 9, 2005 3:46 pm, Mark Tarrabain said: (...) Dean touched on another good reason. It's much easier to judge GUI programs (Robolab & RIS) than text-based languages. In some cases, the judges are NOT programmers, or engineers, they are (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) That's not a good reason at all. Robolab was not actually produced by LEGO. They happen to sell it on their website and they "partnered" with the actual producers of the software, Tufts University and National Instruments. They also happen to (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
If one allows things that are not produced or distributed by lego, then why can't one use non-official sensors? Why can't one drop the entire default firmware? Heck, why does a person even have to use the RCX in the first place and not a more robust (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Highschool FLL competition
|
|
A tiny bit off topic, but of interest to people in this thread. I mentioned in a previous post that we've been running a highschool FLL pilot program the last couple of years. Well FIRST and LEGO have decided not to support the highschool program. (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) First off, judging the technical merit of a program of any significant degree of complexity by simply looking at the code (be it text-based or graphical) for 20 minutes or less is nonsense. The only judging of that sort that ought to occur (...) (20 years ago, 9-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) I don't follow your logic. Are you saying that any change to the rules to allow non-LEGO programming environments that target the standard LEGO firmware (including ones that they encourage people to use by selling tutorials for them on their (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) mini-rant Wow, you're not kidding. Why in the world are we being required to learn a second drawn hieroglyphic language much like ancient Egyptian when we have evolved a much simpler use of an alphabet of letters from which to construct words (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) But not one single eensy-weensy bit of NQC ends up in the robot - it's just a tool. This is the HUGE misunderstanding that people seem to have. NQC *isn't* somehow loaded into the robot. Are you telling me that I can't use any TOOLS that (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) The difference is a really bright line. All of the examples you quote are to do with non-standard things ending up inside the robot. NQC DOESN'T end up inside the robot. Using NQC instead of RIS is no different from using a pocketknife to (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) Yes, no, and no. If Lego themselves also acted as a distributor for NQC (heck, there's nothing saying that LEGO couldn't print CD's and sell them, is there? Sure, the software's freely available, but people buy CD's with free software on them (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) That doesn't matter. What matters is what people _perceive_... which is why non lego tools shouldn't be allowed. People who have more of a computer background would _tend_ to develop better robots, and would also tend towards using tools like (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) Doesn't Jin Sato's book have NQC on the CD? If it does then LEGO is already distributing NQC: (URL) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
On Wed, March 9, 2005 6:31 pm, John Hansen said: (...) But, without knowing what the icons mean, you came pretty close to knowing what the program does. I would argue that it would be much easier for most kids to explain 14 icons than 30-40 lines of (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) .... (...) I agree... unfortunately, there's not a heck of a lot anyone can do about it. The easiest solution is to simply not compete with so dramatically less competent people who don't understand that while you may use different tools, the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) Complete agreement. But it is unfortunately not the case. (...) Actually, they would only need to move the curser over any symbols they were unfamiliar with. The contextual help will spell it out for them. (...) Actually yes. And it is not (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) OK - so there are two horrible implications in what you say: 1) People who have more of a mechanical background are allowed to have a huge advantage - but people who have more of a software background have to be constrained to prevent them (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) But it won't necessarily get perceived that way... it would be perceived that NQC is a tool for advanced users, and that it may offer advantages that the regular LEGO tools don't. Available for zero financial cost doesn't necessarily mean (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) Nonsense. It's not the actual *code* that you need to understand - it's the ALGORITHM. Yeah - to the totally uninitiated, a bunch of boxes with an arrow pointing backwards tells you there is a loop - and maybe a 'for ( x = 0 ; x < 10 ; x++ )' (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) You can't possibly defend that position. ANYONE can have NQC for zero cost! It's an OpenSource project. Just download it from the NQC web site or use the brickcc tool from any web browser! You can even find links to it from the official Lego (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
Hell, let's just switch over to a meritocracy. We can imprison the inept and get it all over with. Who gets to decide whom has merit? In no way does LEGO or FIRST try to level the playing field by constraining anyone's abilities. They constrain the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) The page from which the original image came((URL) says this: "In this program, the RCX will continue beeping until the button is pressed six times. The container keeps track of each time the button is pressed." Having no way to tell simply by (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
On Thu, March 10, 2005 1:46 am, Steve Baker said: (...) People with a mechanical background have a huge advantage over who? People without a mechanical background? Yes, I agree they can build better robots. So, just how is your son constrained? What (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) Because any language that targets the standard LEGO firmware on an RCX brick can not result in any competitive advantage while the other examples you cite clearly would lead to an unlevel playing field. LEGO already provides a language choice (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) They already do, via Pitsco here in the US: (URL) Brian Davis (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) Probably nothing. There certainly are things you can do in MindScript that you couldn't do in NQC until recently. You couldn't use pointers, for example. But I don't think that is what Steve Baker is arguing. He's arguing that his son's (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) So - let's write a two paragraph eMail to all FLL participants that says "By the way, NQC is a tool for writing RCX software - it's utterly free and available by clicking this link on the Lego web site to get to the NQC homepage. Some people (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
snipping somewhat freely... (...) Given these two statements, why are argue so much about whether or not teams can use NQC? Being able to use NQC won't make any difference to the resultant program, being able to use NQC won't make any difference to (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) Of course you won't be successful if you're inept (not saying you are inept) at any aspect of robot building, be it mechanical design, programming, or (especially) mission planning. But I still say that a fairly simple robot with some good (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) Explain to me how good programming compensates for a robot that can't travel straight or that has no mechanical means for completing the mission objectives? If by good programming you mean that the program checks sensors to adjust the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) And in the process, could possibly _decrease_ the number of kids participating, who may feel that it's out of their league. Can you really say with certainty that wouldn't happen? Even if you think you can, I'll bet that LEGO and FLL aren't (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) The issue is not "competitive advantage." The issue is whether or not it is a product of LEGO. You can use any computer you want (Dell, IBM, Gateway, etc.) because LEGO doesn't build computers. But they do offer programming environments that (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
On Fri, March 11, 2005 10:29 am, Steve Baker said: (...) Do you mean kids that are good at software, or good with NQC? And exactly what is "the best available tool"? I assume you're claiming that NQC is the best tool for FLL. While it may be true (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) Boy I am tired of hearing "Robolab has no real world value" Robolab is based on National Instruments Labview product... (URL) which is used globaly by many scientists and engineers for "real world" solutions...like robotics control, test and (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
All, I've been folllowing this thread with a lot of interest, and as the author of pbForth - yet another Mindstorms programming language I'd like to weigh in on this subject. You have to remember that FLL is all about engineering and tinkering. I (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
On Fri, March 11, 2005 11:03 am, Steve Baker said: (...) So, your son (sorry, I'm really not trying to attack your son) can create a sequence of steps using NQC. As we know, these steps are converted to op-codes. Robolab uses icons to represent the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) No programming can compensate for a robot that hasn't mechanical means for completing the mission objectives. But it doesn't take a very sophisticated robot to complete the objectives in the competitions. Many of the teams I saw at this years (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) Well, you can build a two-wheeled robot in two ways. The naive, simplistic way is to put a motor and rotation sensor on each wheel and drive both motors forward and use software to figure out when the robot isn't getting the same amount of (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Ralph Hempel wrote: <snip> (...) This has been my experience. Being in a room full of kids who are all jazzed up on technology, math and science is wonderous. Listening to a kid describe how she discovered subroutines is (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) 1) As several people have pointed out, Lego *do* (somewhat indirectly) 'sell' NQC by providing it on CD-ROM in one of their books and as a CD sold via Pittsco-Dacta. 2) We can use Dell computers because Lego don't make computers. Why can't we (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
Steve, I forgot to add you to the list of those who should "Get off your butt and change it if it really bothers you". Your arguments are well thought out and reasonable. But what are you trying to accomplish? If you want a rule change, work to (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) The guys at NASA *are* undoubtedly very smart at working around problems - but that's a REALLY poor example (and I know everyone uses it). If you look at what they actually came up with, it boils down to using some available plastic and (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
I'm really tired of arguing this. Nobody's minds are being changed. I still think it's a trivial rule change for FLL to fix this and it's long past time that they opened their minds to NQC and other similar systems based on Java or Forth. Other (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
On Fri, March 11, 2005 12:48 pm, Steve Baker said: (...) And, those are the only options? Ok, but it's just not a trivial change. There are a few other topics we never even touched on, like who can you call to get support for NQC? Teams would assume (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) You see, interestingly enough... this is a sort of catch-22 for the people that want NQC allowed. If there is a huge advantage to NQC, people who don't use it might perceive other people using it as somehow unfair to them (even though it _is_ (...) (20 years ago, 11-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
Hi friends, this really has been a most interesting thread about a theme that periodically reappears. I think there are a few things to underline. First of all, there is the idea of a contest that only makes sense, if restricting rules are set up to (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) Just to clarify, your sample program is not really equivalent to the two NQC programs I posted. In my two samples I used two tasks and a global variable. Your sample would need to use a container and a task split to truly be equivalent. (...) (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | RE: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
As a robotics teacher and FLL coach who teaches kids from 7-15 all year 'round, I find ROBOLAB just great. And, while dating myself somewhat, I've programmed with BASIC, FORTRAN, PL/I, and a few other languages. And while I'm the sort that can (...) (20 years ago, 15-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
On Mon, March 14, 2005 6:54 pm, John Hansen said: (...) ... (...) Double-clicking the icon in Robolab shows the help. The default value for the playsound is 6 (fast rising sweep) and 3 is decending sweep. (20 years ago, 15-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | RE: Highschool FLL competition
|
|
What happened with this? I find it sad that FIRST and LEGO decided not to support the highschool program... I'm looking at alternatives, hoping for something within the next two years for those of my students who are aging out... Liz -----Original (...) (20 years ago, 15-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Highschool FLL competition
|
|
(...) I'm not too suprised that FLL decided not to continue with the highschool pilot program. FIRST has no interest because it competes with their "real" robotics competition, and I don't think LEGO sees highschool age kids as a key demographic. So (...) (20 years ago, 15-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) That is unfortunate. Robolab requires that kids specify the sound by a number which ranges from 1 to 6 (apparently). No sound name constants can be defined and used to visibly represent the actual sound they want the RCX to play (I guess). The (...) (20 years ago, 15-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
On Tue, March 15, 2005 12:01 pm, John Hansen said: (...) So, this is the same argument we've been hearing for the last couple weeks, right? NQC is the only "Real" programming language that can be used on the RCX (with standard firmware). If we can't (...) (20 years ago, 15-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | RE: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
I've got an idea. Use the scientific method. Open your mind long enough to coach two FLL teams. Honestly give both teams the same amount of effort and dedication. Honestly divide your team members so the teams are as even as possible talent-wise. (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) So this is that same response we've been hearing for the last couple weeks, right? You are trotting out the same responses you did a week ago - you have not replied to my criticisms of those responses - only repeated them. If that's all you (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
On Wed, March 16, 2005 10:22 am, Steve Baker said: (...) <discussion of cost...> Actually, I'm not talking about the cost. How often do we see LEGO robots out in the "real world" performing tasks? Not very often. I'll bet it's less often than (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
(...) I apologize for the "doesn't allow using a real programming language" statement. It was clearly false and I realized it immediately after I posted. I didn't want to issue an immediate correction because I hoped that people would ignore it as (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
On Wed, March 16, 2005 11:01 am, John Hansen said: (...) My only reason for commenting was that this has been used as an argument before. You've done a nice job of conveying the fact that you're willing to consider that other languages may be (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote: <snip> This entire conversation reminds me of my high school machine shop classes the first day of Machine Shop in grade 9 the shop teacher comes in, after a brief introduction, brings out this little (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) The length of time a top will spin depends (in part) on its diameter. As a result the analogy to a pleasant conversation (during which, to my ears, there has been no ranting or raving) about FLL allowing NQC or not breaks down. John Hansen (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) I wasn't stating that there was ranting and raving in this thread--I mentioned that hte kid ranted and raved when his top was disqualified. the greater point was that when there are competitoins, there are rules to the competitions. These (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
(...) I would agree, but it was you who said "Programming with Robolab is much like creating a flow-chart" and "if you really want to know where spaghetti code comes from, we should talk to those who think flow-charting is a waste of time" here: (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
(...) Just for the record, I agree completely with what you said... but to that end, should a team be disqualified because they designed it in MLCAD? Or should they be disqualified if one of the team members wrote a computer program that could (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
(...) What you teach by not having a <= operator is that you should write: if ( x < 33 ) printf ( "x is 32 or less" ) ; ...rather than if ( x <= 32 ) printf ( "x is 32 or less" ) ; You can "get away with it" in a language that only supports integers (...) (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Mark Tarrabain wrote: <snip> (...) glueing the bricks, melting the bricks... what else... Oh right--taking that bungee string from the power puller and weaving it in and out of the 'bot as a reinforcing technique to keep it (...) (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
On Wed, March 16, 2005 6:34 pm, John Hansen said: (...) ... (...) wow. I guess I don't have a reply to that. My wife (not a programmer) has used Robolab. She said it was like making a flowchart. I assume you're suggesting Robolab has no flow of (...) (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
John, You make some good points regarding Robolab but I'll confess at the outset here that I'm a big fan of Robolab. After having used Robolab with my FLL teams the past two years I can say that it is a powerful tool that works well for teaching (...) (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
(...) snip.... There must be some serious reasons, why ROBOLAB has won so many international didactical software prizes. One often repeated reason is the fact that ROBOLAB includes absolute fascinating datalogging facilities. This makes of the RCX a (...) (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
(...) The text where I said why Robolab requires people with previously acquired flowcharting skills to unlearn some of their skills and break standard flowcharting rules was deleted. Flowcharting rules require that there be only one type of icon (...) (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
Hi Steve, (...) all the programs you have are well-structured, not spaghetti-code as one would expect for flowcharts at least some of the time. I.e. loops and conditions are properly nested, there are no jumps to some completely different place. Is (...) (20 years ago, 18-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
(...) None of the 4th and 5th grade students I have had an opportunity to know would find NQC to be too much for them. I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that it would be "too much" for the kids on your team to understand or use. (...) Could (...) (20 years ago, 18-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
(...) I do not believe Robolab enforces any structure aside from a sequence of connected icons. It is up to the programmer to position things nicely in order to show structure. Robolab does have tools to align icons and wires. The programs on (...) (20 years ago, 18-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
Hi John, (...) I find these extremely misleading, in a flowchart you should rather use the lines to express control flow. (...) It looks like you will have the same label (land icon color) twice in this case, as subVI a is just a macro. However, a (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
Can someone create a lugnet robotics language advocation group or something? I understand some of you want to debate this, but many are bored of hearing it. I am a programmer with a lot of skill and experience, in fact outside of my robotics, it is (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
This thread is getting a bit long so in the interest of brevity I'm combining my replies to several posts in this one message. (...) Thanks for the kind words, Juergen. This structure is not imposed by Robolab but I'm a programmer by trade so I try (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
|
(...) Note that the LEGO Company appears to agree strongly with you. From a press release I just read: ---...--- NEWS RELEASE – March 28, 2005 – NI today announced The LEGO Company uses the NI LabVIEW graphical development environment and NI (...) (20 years ago, 29-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
