Subject:
|
Robolab's string
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:52:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1057 times
|
| |
|
|
As mentioned elsewhere I could be wrong about Robolab. But absent any
informative correction from the Robolab experts listening in I am left to my own
devices to make heads or tails of what Robolab is teaching our children. And
the more I examine the information I have access to regarding Robolab the more
puzzled I get. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. Take, for example, the
Robolab program below:
Here we have a simple Robolab program. There are lines (string) connecting the
various icons together. I’m thinking to myself, what do these lines represent?
Is it logic flow? I can see how that might be, in spite of the lack of arrow
heads indicating direction. I can make the leap that suggests the procedural
flow is always toward the stop light. But there are two pink lines that puzzle
me if the lines represent the flow of logic. One is directly after the green up
arrow and the other is directly after the red up arrow.
In no case can the flow of logic in this program flow past an up arrow to the
icon beyond it. So what does that line mean? Why is it there? It is a
mystery. Can anyone help me understand why in Robolab you draw a line out of an
up arrow (jump icon) to the next icon in the sequence of icons leading toward
the stop light? If the lines represent logic flow then the only line coming out
of an up arrow icon would be a line connecting that icon directly to its pair
(the down arrow of the same color). Any other lines coming out of an up arrow
icon seem as if they would suggest something entirely and completely false.
Looking at the picture it would seem like the program logic could flow through
the green up arrow to the merge icon and then to the red up arrow icon and
finally to the green down arrow icon.
Thanks!
John Hansen
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Robolab's string
|
| (...) John, the program you are proposing for discussion is a good example for bad programming practise, you are absolutely right. I think Dijkstra was the first to insist to banish GOTOs from well structured programming. This was one of the things (...) (20 years ago, 18-Mar-05, to lugnet.robotics, FTX)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
