 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
