Subject:
|
Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:25:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3629 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, March 16, 2005 10:22 am, Steve Baker said:
> > 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.
<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
Labview is used.
But, we're teaching our kids to build with tools and materials they can't possibily
use in the "real world". Why? Is it so they learn the concepts?
> NQC is free - so this old and tired argument against using it simply doesn't fly.
No, it's not. It may be free to get the software, but there are other costs
involved. That's like if I gave you a free car. It's free, unless you want to use
it.
In many places, FLL teams are coached by English teachers, who are much better than
me at research and presentations, but have no idea where to mount a gear-ratio. If
you tell that teacher that NQC is a huge advantage, then she either has to learn it,
or find another teacher who can help with that. One way or another, that's going to
cost somebody.
And, when she can't solve the problems, who does she call for help? Does she call
LEGO? No, they don't make the software. Should she call John? I doubt it. Sure,
there are places on the web that sometimes offer help, but how many people have come
to lugnet for help, and got nothing?
> > 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.
Robolab doesn't force you to use bad techniques. How are you suggesting it does?
> 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.
They would also be better off using real robot parts and materials. But that's out
of the scope of FLL.
It's not reasonable to assume anything the kids learn in FLL will transfer directly
into "real world" knowledge. This whole discussion is about allowing the use of NOT
QUITE C. Are we teaching a language they can use in the future? Not quite.
When I was growing up, I learned Integer basic, Applesoft, Fortran, Pascal... and
countless other languages. Are they doing me any good, now? Not really. Oh, wait,
Delphi uses Pascal. I got lucky there.
I didn't get my current job because I'm really good at programming with one
language. I got it because I know many different languages. I've never even see
one line of Fortran code, once I got out of high school. I assume that memory space
has been overwritten. No big loss.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: FLL not allowing NQC; Mindscript is allowed
|
| 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)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
