Subject:
|
Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:22:16 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Steve Baker <sjbaker1@airmail.STOPSPAMnet>
|
Viewed:
|
3550 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> So, this is the same argument we've been hearing for the last couple weeks, right?
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 plan
to do - then the debate is at an end and we should stop chasing this thread.
Let's try this one more time. This time, kindly respond to my answers - tell me why
what I'm saying isn't true.
> NQC is the only "Real" programming language that can be used on the RCX (with
> standard firmware). If we can't use NQC, I won't participate.
Not "won't" - "can't"...not without teaching my kids bad habits that they'll later
have to un-learn. Dumbing down their thought processes is something I simply won't
even consider doing. FLL's benefits to the kids are outweighed by it's disadvantages
in this respect.
This is a true statement of why my kids don't participate. You can't debunk it
because it's an absolute truth.
> Let me also repeat myself. This is NO different from someone who's good at building
> 'sheet-metal' robots, coming in and saying, "FLL doesn't allow the use of REAL
> hardware in it's competitions."
That's simply not true. Let me repeat my same explanation:
Restricting people to a particular set of items from which the robot can be
constructed limits the cost of the robot. You could try to do that by limiting
the precise types of motors, the amount of metal sheeting and the cost of the
machine tools the team are permitted to use in constructing it - but simply saying
"Use the following Lego parts" is a much simpler way to say that. Also, Lego parts
are infinitely re-usable and most of what goes into a sheet-metal robot are probably
not. Expecting poorer schools to provide the budget and facilities needed to
design and built robots 'from scratch' is just not realistic. What makes FLL
approachable by so many is the financial side of things.
Sheet metal robots are not cost-controllable. You can't prevent a team with a
lot of money from building something that a poorer team couldn't possibly afford.
So the end result is that the team with the $10,000 budget and a metal shop that
would put the Lockheed Skunk works to shame can beat out an inner-city school
with smart and enthusiastic kids (but a $150 budget) every time. That's *NOT*
the same thing as FLL's approach.
NQC is free - so this old and tired argument against using it simply doesn't fly.
Please explain why you think you are right and I am wrong.
> NQC doesn't teach any better programming skills than Robolab. You can create
> exactly the same "spaghetti code where you 'jump' whenever you wish" as with
> Robolab. The coaches need to teach good programming.
Another tired argument that I debunked a dozen times.
NQC doesn't necessarily *teach* better programming techniques - but (unlike Robolab)
it doesn't *force* you to use BAD programming techniques that'll later have to unlearn.
The two examples quoted earlier show this more clearly than words ever could.
If one of my programming team wrote code that looked like the non-NQC version, I'd
fire him on the spot. People have to un-learn those bad habits - and unlearning is
is a lot harder than learning.
If kids are going to grow up to work in the IT business, or write software for a
living or design actual, real robots for real applications then they will be much
better served by learning real programming languages from the get-go than having
their brains fried by this anti-learning process.
This thread still needs to die.
---------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------
HomeEmail: <sjbaker1@airmail.net> WorkEmail: <sjbaker@link.com>
HomePage : http://www.sjbaker.org
Projects : http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net
http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCS d-- s:+ a+ C++++$ 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
|
| 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
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
