Subject:
|
Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:11:46 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
robots@deeletef3p+NoSpam+.com
|
Viewed:
|
3367 times
|
| |
|
|
"John Hansen" <afanofosc@comcast.net> wrote:
> 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
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 apply to the rest of the
Mindstorms universe, so it makes perfect sense for them to limit
participants to using those environments.
> clearly would lead to an unlevel playing field. LEGO already provides a
The playing field is not level. Nobody claims to make it level. I
can spend as much money as I want getting my team the exact bricks and
colors that they want. I can buy each kid his own set, and a computer
to run it on. That certainly isn't level, and there is no rule
against it. Don't trot out the "fair" or "level" argument when it
doesn't really hold water.
> LEGO firmware but are not sold for profit by LEGO. Those tools are excluded
> based on an artificially constructed limitation. Excluding non-LEGO hardware
The entire world of FLL competition is artificially constructed.
There are limitations on all aspects of the FLL competition. They only
allow 1 RCX, and there are many times when 2 would make things much
easier. Or 4 motors. Or, what I wouldn't give to be able to use 2
rotation sensors. But they don't allow it, so you work around it. If
you really have strong programming skills, it should be a no-brainer
to work in RIS, or even Mindscript. After all, they're just tools,
aren't they? If NQC really doesn't give you a competitive advantage,
then why shouldn't you be able to work in RIS?
> > experience. Successful teams have a clear vision on how to complete all the
>
> 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
Well, the single line above has an important word in it. "teams" You
apparently didn't have enough variety in your team makeup. You failed
because you relied on your programming skills to make up for a lack of
mechanical skills. I would suspect that a team with incredible
mechanical skills would have similar results if they couldn't figure
out how to turn on the computer. We had kids who knew mechanicals,
kids who knew programming, kids who knew research, and kids who knew
how to put on a show. We didn't do spectacular in any given arena,
but we did very good overall.
> tasks within the five minute time limit. I could help teach the kids how to
2.5 minutes.
> 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.
If the programming is such a small part of the puzzle, why would you
even *need* NQC?
> 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
So, you work in a fairy-tale world? Restrictions without good reason
are *very* real world. Restrictions without any reason whatsoever are
*very* real world. Arbitrary restrictions put in place purely to make
your life miserable are *very* real world. Whether they *should* be
real-world or not is really a moot point.
> LASM. But those languages are perfectly legal to use solely because they are
> official LEGO languages.
Exactly.
> The available pool of interested and experienced people is simply much larger with
> NQC included than it is with it excluded.
I agree with this statement. But then, the pool of interested people
would be larger if they allowed Megabloks, too. Or K'nex.
I've been a technical coach for the last two years. If you really get
involved with FLL, you will realize that it isn't about the
programming language. It isn't about the RCX or 3 motor limits. It
isn't about Mission Mars or No Limits or even LEGO for that matter.
It's about the kids and watching them learn and solve problems and
grow, with just a nudge here and there from the coach.
Someone mentioned the Tsunami victims, and they were right.
Programming languages are a small issue. My wife died of breast
cancer a month ago yesterday. That was a big issue. Life is a big
issue. LEGO and FLL, while wonderful institutions, are not Big
Issues. Step outside, play in the snow with your kids. That's a big
issue. Hug someone you love. That's a big issue. Plastic bricks and
Ones and Zeros are not big issues.
-Jon
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
