 | | Re: Why java (or other langs) for Robots —PeterBalch
| | | | Dan (...) (at (...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 19-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Why java (or other langs) for Robots —dan miller
| | | | | (...) ... (...) 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)
| | | | | | |
