Subject:
|
Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Mar 2005 14:42:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3599 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Dean Hystad wrote:
> robot if I program in C++. But that is not allowed. Why is the language choice
> viewed differently than the mechanical or processor choices?
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 - MindScript, LASM, RIS, or Robolab. All of these target the
standard LEGO firmware. There are other tools that also target the standard
LEGO firmware but are not sold for profit by LEGO. Those tools are excluded
based on an artificially constructed limitation. Excluding non-LEGO hardware
and non-LEGO firmware makes complete sense. Excluding non-LEGO software tools
that target the standard LEGO firmware does not make any sense, especially when
those tools are free to all users and available on additional platforms and
operating systems.
> 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.
I've coached an FLL team twice (2002, 2003). In both cases we failed miserably
because we were all completely clueless when it came to mechanical design. We
couldn't figure out how to design a robot that could manipulate the necessary
objects while being structurally sound and fast enough to complete multiple
tasks within the five minute time limit. I could help teach the kids how to
program the thing (using RIS) if we could ever get a design together that didn't
suffer from a fatal mechanical design flaw. Even with all the examples out on
the internet that the kids and I looked at we still couldn't get it right.
No one will ever be able to convince me that FLL doesn't reward mechanics over
programming. Being able to clean dust off the solar collector, trigger the ball
launch, deliver the housing modules in a specific physical arrangement, and
climbing into the crater (etc...) are all objectives which require mechanical
ability and the programming aspects of these tasks are generally a much smaller
part of the puzzle.
> 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?
Restrictions without good reasons should not be real-world. I don't stand for
that where I work. The FLL restriction regarding which language can be used is
not based on a good reason. My guess is that the vast majority of volunteer
judges at FLL competitions have rarely seen MindScript or LASM directly. They
may be very familiar with the RIS GUI and know every Robolab icon at a glance
but most probably have a very limited familiarity (at best) with MindScript or
LASM. But those languages are perfectly legal to use solely because they are
official LEGO languages.
If the rule said you can't use MindScript or LASM because we can't afford the
cost of training judges in both the GUI-based tools and the underlying
text-based language then their rule might actually make some sense. But even
then the rule would be based on a seriously flawed view of judging the technical
merit of a program. As I mentioned previously, the technical merit of a program
should only be judged via a team-led review of the algorithm and design of the
software and not a line-by-line examination of the source code. If FLL were to
do this sort of judging correctly then their judges would not need to be highly
trained in every supported language. They would simply need to be someone who
understands the programming concepts common to every programming language. The
FLL team members would provide the language-specific knowledge to explain and
present their software in a language-generic manner. And if FLL were to allow
NQC in their competitions I would wager that they would find a substantial
increase in adult volunteers as team coaches and as judges at competitions. The
available pool of interested and experienced people is simply much larger with
NQC included than it is with it excluded.
John Hansen
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
