Subject:
|
Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sat, 12 Mar 2005 04:54:02 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
dan miller <DANBMIL99@YAHOOavoidspam.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
994 times
|
| |
|
|
not to belabor this issue, but...
At first glance, Mindscript seems rather NQC-ish. How hard would it be to write a compiler for
NQC-->MindScript? Alternatively, couldn't one rather easily take the output bytecodes, and write
a program to parse them into some sort of MindScript format? (might be pushing the spirit of the
rules a bit... but if it's unreadable, that would be a point against them).
The issue here seems to be that part of the competition involves documenting the code in an
agreed-upon high-level language. It seems reasonable to me for the organizers to restrict the
formats they are willing to accept for this requirement.
Let's face it, the really good programmers out there can write the same program in NQC,
Mindscript, or whatever (if it's possible to write it for the firmware). Their advantage will
surely stand. In fact, one could argue that the *really* clever programmer would see the language
restriction as an interesting challenge, rather than an affront to their sensibilities.
Just my 2c
--- Mark Tarrabain <markt@lynx.SPAMBLOCK.net> wrote:
> Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> > On Fri, March 11, 2005 12:48 pm, Steve Baker said:
> >
> > > I still think it's a trivial
> > > rule change for FLL... Other people - ... will never agree.
> >
> >
> > 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 they can call LEGO, when in fact they should
> > call John(?).
> >
> > And, there's others.
> >
> > If anyone comes up with anything you can do with NQC, but not Robolab, I may look at
> > it different, but no one's been able to do that.
> >
> > So, where is this huge advantage?
> >
> > Steve
>
>
> 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_ available to everyone, unfamiliarity with the tool could
> nevertheless be construed as an unfair disadvantage when LEGO themselves
> is not actively endorsing the product).
>
> If there isn't a huge advantage with NQC, then trying to argue why it
> should be allowed is pointless.
>
> > > Mark
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| (...) It *is* belaboring the issue. All of the points you raise have already been discussed at length. This thread needs to die. Nobody is changing anyones minds anymore. ---...--- Steve Baker ---...--- HomeEmail: <sjbaker1@airmail.net> WorkEmail: (...) (20 years ago, 12-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
