Subject:
|
RE: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:56:15 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Liz Bilbro <[liz@bookwyrmz]spamcake[.com]>
|
Reply-To:
|
<liz@bookwyrmz.com#saynotospam#>
|
Viewed:
|
3697 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
Have one use ROBOLAB -- and teach them good programming techniques while
you're at it. Have the other use NQC or a programming language of your
choice, and convert it in a legal fashion to RCX byte-code.
Let them compete with each other or in FLL competition. Then see if there's
a difference. I think you'll be surprised.
Personally, I detest RIS, but according to statistics, winning teams are
equally divided between RIS and ROBOLAB users. Perhaps it's the talent and
teamwork that makes the difference.
So formulate your hypothesis (oh, yeah, you've done that already), gather
your data, and come back when you can prove something scientifically.
"You can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?"
Liz Bilbro
BTW, many of the contests where the robots are fabricated severely limit the
parts and materials you can use.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Baker [mailto:sjbaker1@airmail.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:22 AM
To: Steve Hassenplug
Cc: lego-robotics@crynwr.com
Subject: Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
