 | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Jon Gilchrist
|
| | | (...) 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 —Steve Baker
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Ralph Hempel
|
| | | | | 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 —Dean Hystad
|
| | | | | | | 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 —Steve Baker
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —Claude Baumann
|
| | | | | | 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 —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | 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 —Steve Baker
|
| | | | 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 —Dean Hystad
|
| | | | | 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 —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | 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 —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
