Subject:
|
Re: Why java (or other langs) for Robots
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:52:59 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
PeterBalch <PETERBALCH@stopspammersCOMPUSERVE.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
1395 times
|
| |
|
|
Dan
> > Type 1 [servos]
> > Type 2 [subsumption]
> > Type 3 [high-level]
>
> This
> three-level architecture is actually just what they teach in grad school • (at
> least at CMU.)
Wow, that's nice to hear.
Brooke's philosopy deals very neatly with levels 1 and 2 but how do CMU say
we should integrate the high-level stuff into it?
That has always been my difficulty with subsumption architecture. It's fine
for Genghis who just bumbles around but if you've got a job to do that's
more complex than collecting beer cans, how is that integrated with the
subsumption stuff? (Of course, that's the question that all the critics of
subsumption have asked. I'm a fan - not a critic.)
> My present thoughts revolve around some sort
> of meta-language, that has the right properties to be implemented at all
> three levels.
Good luck. However, I believe that sort of thinking leads to the likes of
PL1 (and Ada ?). One language to rule them all and in the darkness bind
them. A language which can do all those different things is an unwieldy
monster.
The different levels require different languages, GUIs, development tools,
etc. For me, Brooke's breakthrough was that he showed how to keep the
different levels separate but also integrate them into a single system.
> Mid and High-level routines would reside mostly in the big
> brain, but bits of code could be downloaded and executed on the • controller
> when necessary (say because of latency concerns). All of this would be • as
> transparent to the programmer as possible.
A single program whose execution is split amongst different computers. That
would be great.
Keep thinking about it. If you crack it, you'll be doing us all an enormous
service.
Peter
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why java (or other langs) for Robots
|
| (...) ... (...) The 3-level concept as traditionally taught doesn't really say #2 is 'subsumption' -- that's my perception of it. Here's an example of typical course material: (URL) was just making a rough analogy to your "3 levels of robotics (...) (18 years ago, 19-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
