 | | Re: Why java is (not) bad for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) TLG must provide software (firmware) that's "Bullet-Proof" for kids. (most of their users) I prefer a faster version of the firmware, which is why I use BrickOS. These appear mutually exclusive. Is that different from what you're talking (...) (19 years ago, 23-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why java is (not) bad for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) One possibility would be to have a compiler that compiles NXT graphical code into ARM code, or NXT executable into ARM code (kind of like a Java just in time compiler). This would bypass the interpreter of the firmware and potentially give you (...) (19 years ago, 23-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why java is (not) bad for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) What is the output of the NXT graphical programming environment? I mean the NXT could already have a JIT type execution environment already whereby the graphical IDE generates pseudo-code ("bytecode") and the firmware on the NXT does the (...) (19 years ago, 23-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why java is (not) bad for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) I don't know the format of the output of the graphical programming environment. The concept of a JIT compiler seems good to me. Dunno where it should exist. on the NXT or on the PC? (...) Could be. (...) I sure hope so. (...) Kev (19 years ago, 23-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why java is (not) bad for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) Well my understaing of JIT compiler is that its a part of the actual runtime so I'm not sure how it would be on the PC?! Though you got me thinking (dangerous), perhaps the best way to program the NXT is not to run a binary but instead use an (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why java is (not) bad for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) This doesn't sound crazy to me. And, I'd be willing to bet the people at LEGO don't think it's crazy, either. Steve (19 years ago, 24-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why java is (not) bad for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) Thanks Steve! I would definitely like to explore this idea if I'm part of the MDP (unless the NXT already has a high-level protocol!). -aps (19 years ago, 24-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why java is (not) bad for Mindstorms
|
|
-- pisymbol <pisymbol@gmail.com> wrote: [SNIP} (...) If I'm chosen as the one of the 100, this is what I will work on, using and abusing the BT communications on the NXT. Right now, I'm working at using the RCX Ir-I2C mindsensors.com interface for (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | NXT + BlueTooth + PC (was: Java Baad)
|
|
Ditto to pretty much everything on this thread. My present robot has a PC running Linux talking to an RCX over IR, using my own (not XML!!) message protocol. For a look at how this can play out, check out what these guys did with some NSA money: (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why java is (not) bad for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) I think this would be a nice project and prove very useful. (...) I'm not really advocating Java or any language. Personally, I think Java is in appropriate for low-level programming and one is probably best off with C/asm. However, in this (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why java is (not) bad for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) I disagree. The original software produced by LEGO was definitely far from "bullet-proof". Robolab is extremely far from "bullet-proof". It is a mind-set and nothing more which says that kids need the simplicity and hand-holding that a (...) (19 years ago, 24-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why [no single language] is good for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) The RIS v2.0 software actually DID save files in "Mindscript", which is a text language. I suspect they won't go that direction again, because it just wasn't that popular. (...) ... (...) Sorry if I wasn't clear. TLG must provide FIRMWARE (...) (19 years ago, 25-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why [no single language] is good for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) Linux isn't a language. It's an operating system. And nobody I know uses Linux without a graphical user interface. And nobody I know programs in text-based languages at a OS command prompt using VI. Do people write posts to Lugnet by dragging (...) (19 years ago, 25-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why [no single language] is good for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) Ahem, I'm using debian right now as a server, and haven't even installed a graphical interface on it. And yes, I regularly have to go delve into config files etc with vi. (...) In fact I did exactly that with LegOS (as it was then) and NQC for (...) (19 years ago, 25-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why [no single language] is good for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) Hey! I use Linux every day and I don't use X as a GUI. And I program 8 hours a day all within vi. I will admit that I may not be the typical mindstorms programmer. In the end it really comes down to what folks are most comfortable with. In my (...) (19 years ago, 26-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why [no single language] is good for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) Version 3.3.7.10 (2005-10-05) Version 3.3.7.7 Version 3.3.7.6 (2003-10-27) Version 3.3.7.5 (2003-05-22) Version 3.3.7.4 (2003-03-24) Version 3.3.7.3 (2003-03-07) Version 3.3.7.2 (2003-02-12) Version 3.3.7.1 (2003-01-16) Version 3.3.6.6 (...) (19 years ago, 26-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Why [no single language] is good for Mindstorms
|
|
(...) ...snip... (...) Steve, I totally agree with you. A few remarks: 1. There doesn't exist any non-buggy programming language. 2. There doesn't exist any best language. The reason that different languages exist is that there are different people (...) (19 years ago, 26-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
