Subject:
|
Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:38:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3648 times
|
| |
|
|
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 tools that you can use; only LEGO
bricks, motors and sensors, only one RCX, and only the traditional languages,
RIS and ROBOLAB. Heck, I'm suprised they even allow RIS given how deeply
embedded ROBOLAB is in their education product chain.
I could make a much better robot using aluminum, nuts and bolts. But that is
not allowed. I could make a much better robot using a VME chassis full of
PowerPC's. But that is not allowed. I might be able to make a slightly better
robot if I program in C++. But that is not allowed. Why is the language choice
viewed differently than the mechanical or processor choices?
I don't see FLL rewarding mechanics over programming. That has not been my
experience. Successful teams have a clear vision on how to complete all the
missions. Their robot platforms are the simplest solution that implements their
vison. Then they depend on programming to make up for all the deficiencies in
the robot platform.
For example:
Robots that use fancy mechanical tricks to improve odometry do not perform as
well as robots that uses sensors to identify landmarks and make corrections to
their trajectory.
Robots that go really fast, but must return to base after each mission objective
take longer to complete all the objectives than a slower robot that can do
multiple missions in one outing.
Robots with overly complicated mechanisms seldom work. Oh, that's often true
for programs too.
I also take issue with snide comments about if education is important to FLL
they should allow real programming languages. Learning a specific programming
language, especially when you're 10 or 11, is a rather worthless activity. I
know dozens of programming languages that I will never use again. But learning
the process of programming is useful. When's the next time I'm going to program
in Fortran? Likely never, but it is good that I learned structured design. Am
I going to get a lot of use out of Smalltalk? Unlikely, but I've found that
understanding concepts like inheritance and polymorphism is very useful. Will a
kid ever program in ROBOLAB (or LabVIEW)? Probably not, but it can be used as a
tool for teaching many useful ideas.
And one final comment. I don't understand engineers complaining that FLL places
restrictions on supported programming languages, operating system choices,
computing platform and sensor availability. Don't we have to put up with that
every day? How much more real-world and educational can you get?
Dean Hystad
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
