Subject:
|
Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:27:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3970 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
|
wow. I guess I dont have a reply to that. My wife (not a programmer) has
used Robolab. She said it was like making a flowchart.
|
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 used to represent
a decision and that that icon should have a different shape from the type of
icon used to represent a normal process step. Flowcharting rules require that
all lines show the direction of process flow using arrows. If the flow of logic
loops back (or forward) then flowcharting rules require that there be a line
showing the flow of logic with an arrow showing the direction and connecting the
point in the flow where a decision causes the looping to occur to the point in
the flow of logic where the process begins again.
I could enumerate many more points of departure between the flowcharting skills
a person would learn outside the Robolab world and the sort of skills a person
learning Robolab would develop. If anyone reading this believes I am wrong
about these specific rule differences please point out where, exactly, I have
made my mistakes. Does what is done in Robolab actually follow all the standard
flowcharting rules contrary to my assertions? If Robolab does break those rules
as I have asserted does that rule breakage benefit the child learning to program
or does it teach them skills they may need to unlearn (or has it no positive or
negative effect whatsoever)?
|
I assume youre suggesting Robolab has no flow of logic, decision making, or
procedural steps. I dont agree. But I have no way to support my opinion.
|
I clearly did not say or anywhere suggest such a thing. I said that Robolab
breaks flowcharting rules so it is not a natural progression from the
flowcharting world to the Robolab world. If anyone out there disagrees with my
assertions please argue against them - not against things I have never even
thought let alone posted in messages here. If anyone out there believes that I
am right about Robolab breaking several standard flowcharting rules but that I
am nit-picking and that such rule breakage is inconsequential then say as much.
|
I still belive Robolab is a good tool for teaching programming.
|
As I have asserted elsewhere, if a tool requires or encourages a child to use
certain programming practices that are widely (universally?) considered to be
bad programming practices then such a tool is (I assert) teaching a child
habits that she may need to unlearn later in life. Does anyone out there
disagree with that assertion? If so, specifically, what is the nature of your
disagreement?
Does anyone out there believe that requiring or encouraging a child to use
magic numbers all over his programs is a good thing? Does anyone out there
believe that requiring or encouraging a child to implement looping constructs
using up and down arrow icons that are associated with each other solely by
their color is a good thing? Does anyone out there believe that requiring a
child to use numeric values that are sometimes 1-based and other times 0-based
and converting them magically behind the scenes is a good thing? I would dearly
like to be shown that I have misunderstood Robolab and that it doesnt actually
require or encourage a child to use programming techniques widely considered to
be bad practices. Any of the many Robolab experts reading this should easily be
able to show me that I am wrong and I will gladly and readily admit my mistake
and apologize when they do so.
|
So heres my speech. Ive coached a First LEGO League team for the last four
years.
|
big snip
Please, any of you out there, dont reply to my posts as if I were someone else
and as if I had written the things someone else wrote. None of what was written
in the snipped bit above had anything to do with what I have posted regarding
this topic on Lugnet.
|
NQC offers NO advantage to teams.
|
Ive asked a number of questions about how to do certain things in Robolab.
Ive openly and often admitted that I may be wrong about what you can or cannot
do in Robolab. And I have elsewhere freely admitted that Robolab clearly has
the advantage over any other tool when it comes to data acquisition. But if
anyone out there can show me (i.e., post a Robolab picture) how to do the things
I have asked about previously then I will agree with Steve (or whoever helps
inform me). See my earlier posts for the exact questions I have previously
posed. I also meant to ask how you would write this in Robolab:
int x[10]; // global to all tasks
int* y = &x; // pointer to global variable
task main()
{
int i; // task local
int j; // ditto
for(i=0;i<5; i++)
{
*y = i+1; // indirect global variable access
y++;
for(j=0;j<4; j++)
{
PlayTone(x[i]*100+j*10, 50); // arrays & temporary variables
Wait(100);
}
}
}
Thanks in advance for your assistance.
John Hansen
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
|
| 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|