Robotics : 23740


Robotics / 23740	23739 \| 23741

Subject:	Re: Robolab as a tool for teaching programming
Newsgroups:	lugnet.robotics
Date:	Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:27:53 GMT
Viewed:	3792 times

In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote:

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.

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 you’re suggesting Robolab has no flow of logic, decision making, or procedural steps. I don’t 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 doesn’t 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 here’s my speech. I’ve coached a First LEGO League team for the last four years.

big snip

Please, any of you out there, don’t 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.

I’ve asked a number of questions about how to do certain things in Robolab. I’ve 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

Custom Search