Subject:
|
Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:03:24 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail.*AntiSpam*net>
|
Viewed:
|
3621 times
|
| |
|
|
Jon Gilchrist wrote:
> 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.
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 use a C compiler because Lego don't make C compilers? By choosing
your boundaries carefully enough (ie 'Lego make programming environments')
you can justify or eliminate any software tool.
> 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.
I was responding to earlier arguments (ridiculous ones IMHO) that allowing
NQC would be unfair on kids who don't know it. If you don't care that
things might be unfair then one major plank of your argument falls to the
ground.
> > 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.
Yes - but doing so limits the amount of money schools have to spend in
order to have a competitive team. If FLL allowed two RCX's then there
would be a massive advantage to schools who could afford lots of sets.
FLL rightly limit the amount of things that have to be paid for in order
to level the playing field between rich schools and poor ones as far as
is practicable.
Let's say this one more time - just in case anyone missed it the first
ten times: NQC COSTS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Hence, the rationale for limiting hardware does not have to apply to
NQC (or any other free tool).
> 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.
That's just not true. My son's fluency in NQC is not going to translate
to some braindead scheme of dragging little boxes around to make archaic
flowcharts.
Real programmers simply don't work like that. Real programs (even real
Lego robotics programs) are hundreds of lines long - and translating those
into an RIS flowchart results in largely incomprehensible spaghetti.
> 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?
I don't agree that NQC gives you no advantage. I think it's a huge
advantage - and one that all children should be allowed to exercise because
robotics is at least as much about software skills as it is about mechanical
design skills and there is no reason to artificially limit one in favor of
the other.
> > 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.
That's not really true. Neither Megabloks nor K'nex have the parts to
make a viable robot. FLL has to limit the scope of the parts that cost
money and have an easy way to control that. Fixating on one specific
set of parts is a good way to cap the cost of entering a viable robot.
> 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.
Absolutely. So why is my kid excluded just because he's chosen to
learn a real programming language instead of a toy one?
> Step outside, play in the snow with your kids.
It's 65 degrees out there! :-)
> That's a big issue. Hug someone you love. That's a big issue. Plastic bricks and
> Ones and Zeros are not big issues.
That's true - but as I said before - solve the problems you can solve.
It's too easy to look at the huge impossible targets and get so overwhelmed
by them that you are stunned into inaction. Better to chip away at the
edges doing the best you can. Trying to get FLL to allow 'real' programming
skills into the contest isn't going to change the world - but it just might
give one smart child enough of an inspiration to get a $100,000 per annum
career in computer programming instead of his latent skills going unexercised
at the time of life when it matters most...I'd like to see more of that
- and it's worth fighting for.
---------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------
HomeEmail: <sjbaker1@airmail.net> WorkEmail: <sjbaker@link.com>
HomePage : http://www.sjbaker.org
Projects : http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net
http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCS d-- s:+ a+ C++++$ UL+++$ P--- L++++$ E--- W+++ N o+ K? w--- !O M-
V-- PS++ PE- Y-- PGP-- t+ 5 X R+++ tv b++ DI++ D G+ e++ h--(-) r+++ y++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
