 | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | On Mon, March 14, 2005 6:54 pm, John Hansen said: (...) ... (...) Double-clicking the icon in Robolab shows the help. The default value for the playsound is 6 (fast rising sweep) and 3 is decending sweep. (20 years ago, 15-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —John Hansen
|
| | | | (...) That is unfortunate. Robolab requires that kids specify the sound by a number which ranges from 1 to 6 (apparently). No sound name constants can be defined and used to visibly represent the actual sound they want the RCX to play (I guess). The (...) (20 years ago, 15-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | On Tue, March 15, 2005 12:01 pm, John Hansen said: (...) So, this is the same argument we've been hearing for the last couple weeks, right? NQC is the only "Real" programming language that can be used on the RCX (with standard firmware). If we can't (...) (20 years ago, 15-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Steve Baker
|
| | | | | (...) So this is that same response we've been hearing for the last couple weeks, right? You are trotting out the same responses you did a week ago - you have not replied to my criticisms of those responses - only repeated them. If that's all you (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | RE: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Liz Bilbro
|
| | | | | | | I've got an idea. Use the scientific method. Open your mind long enough to coach two FLL teams. Honestly give both teams the same amount of effort and dedication. Honestly divide your team members so the teams are as even as possible talent-wise. (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | | | On Wed, March 16, 2005 10:22 am, Steve Baker said: (...) <discussion of cost...> Actually, I'm not talking about the cost. How often do we see LEGO robots out in the "real world" performing tasks? Not very often. I'll bet it's less often than (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote: <snip> This entire conversation reminds me of my high school machine shop classes the first day of Machine Shop in grade 9 the shop teacher comes in, after a brief introduction, brings out this little (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —John Hansen
|
| | | | | | (...) The length of time a top will spin depends (in part) on its diameter. As a result the analogy to a pleasant conversation (during which, to my ears, there has been no ranting or raving) about FLL allowing NQC or not breaks down. John Hansen (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) I wasn't stating that there was ranting and raving in this thread--I mentioned that hte kid ranted and raved when his top was disqualified. the greater point was that when there are competitoins, there are rules to the competitions. These (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | | | (...) Just for the record, I agree completely with what you said... but to that end, should a team be disqualified because they designed it in MLCAD? Or should they be disqualified if one of the team members wrote a computer program that could (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.robotics, Mark Tarrabain wrote: <snip> (...) glueing the bricks, melting the bricks... what else... Oh right--taking that bungee string from the power puller and weaving it in and out of the 'bot as a reinforcing technique to keep it (...) (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —John Hansen
|
| | | | (...) I apologize for the "doesn't allow using a real programming language" statement. It was clearly false and I realized it immediately after I posted. I didn't want to issue an immediate correction because I hoped that people would ignore it as (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | | On Wed, March 16, 2005 11:01 am, John Hansen said: (...) My only reason for commenting was that this has been used as an argument before. You've done a nice job of conveying the fact that you're willing to consider that other languages may be (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —John Hansen
|
| | | | | | (...) I would agree, but it was you who said "Programming with Robolab is much like creating a flow-chart" and "if you really want to know where spaghetti code comes from, we should talk to those who think flow-charting is a waste of time" here: (...) (20 years ago, 16-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —Steve Hassenplug
|
| | | | | | | On Wed, March 16, 2005 6:34 pm, John Hansen said: (...) ... (...) wow. I guess I don't have a reply to that. My wife (not a programmer) has used Robolab. She said it was like making a flowchart. I assume you're suggesting Robolab has no flow of (...) (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —Claude Baumann
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) snip.... There must be some serious reasons, why ROBOLAB has won so many international didactical software prizes. One often repeated reason is the fact that ROBOLAB includes absolute fascinating datalogging facilities. This makes of the RCX a (...) (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —Naji Norder
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Note that the LEGO Company appears to agree strongly with you. From a press release I just read: ---...--- NEWS RELEASE – March 28, 2005 – NI today announced The LEGO Company uses the NI LabVIEW graphical development environment and NI (...) (20 years ago, 29-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —John Hansen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The text where I said why Robolab requires people with previously acquired flowcharting skills to unlearn some of their skills and break standard flowcharting rules was deleted. Flowcharting rules require that there be only one type of icon (...) (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —Steve Dakin
|
| | | | | | John, You make some good points regarding Robolab but I'll confess at the outset here that I'm a big fan of Robolab. After having used Robolab with my FLL teams the past two years I can say that it is a powerful tool that works well for teaching (...) (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —Juergen Stuber
|
| | | | | | | Hi Steve, (...) all the programs you have are well-structured, not spaghetti-code as one would expect for flowcharts at least some of the time. I.e. loops and conditions are properly nested, there are no jumps to some completely different place. Is (...) (20 years ago, 18-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —John Hansen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I do not believe Robolab enforces any structure aside from a sequence of connected icons. It is up to the programmer to position things nicely in order to show structure. Robolab does have tools to align icons and wires. The programs on (...) (20 years ago, 18-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —Juergen Stuber
|
| | | | | | | | | Hi John, (...) I find these extremely misleading, in a flowchart you should rather use the lines to express control flow. (...) It looks like you will have the same label (land icon color) twice in this case, as subVI a is just a macro. However, a (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —Danny Staple
|
| | | | | | | | Can someone create a lugnet robotics language advocation group or something? I understand some of you want to debate this, but many are bored of hearing it. I am a programmer with a lot of skill and experience, in fact outside of my robotics, it is (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —John Hansen
|
| | | | | | | (...) None of the 4th and 5th grade students I have had an opportunity to know would find NQC to be too much for them. I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that it would be "too much" for the kids on your team to understand or use. (...) Could (...) (20 years ago, 18-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —Steve Dakin
|
| | | | | | This thread is getting a bit long so in the interest of brevity I'm combining my replies to several posts in this one message. (...) Thanks for the kind words, Juergen. This structure is not imposed by Robolab but I'm a programmer by trade so I try (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming —Steve Baker
|
| | | | (...) What you teach by not having a <= operator is that you should write: if ( x < 33 ) printf ( "x is 32 or less" ) ; ...rather than if ( x <= 32 ) printf ( "x is 32 or less" ) ; You can "get away with it" in a language that only supports integers (...) (20 years ago, 17-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
