Subject:
|
Re: Why java is (not) bad for Mindstorms
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:51:34 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
T. Alexander Popiel <popiel@wolfskeep.com=StopSpam=>
|
Viewed:
|
1638 times
|
| |
|
|
In message: <200601230538_MC3-1-B63B-ED5E@compuserve.com>
PeterBalch <PeterBalch@compuserve.com> writes:
> Kev
>
> > My guess is that it is not possible for the official language can
> > be everything to eveyone.
>
> Why not?
Because different people want mutually contradictory things.
For my own usage, there are times when I want a very procedural
language where I can easily specify the precise sequence that
things happen in at incredibly fine level of detail (usually
because there are stringent time constraints on the operation),
and there are other times when I want to say "these are ways
to do stuff, you figure out how much of it you need and the
best order to do it in" (as is easily expressed in Haskell,
for instance).
> Why couldn't the original RIS language interface have had a button
> to press which converted your program to a textual form like a
> conventional language? And this textual language had all the extra
> goodies that hackers want?
When you speak of "a conventional language", are you talking
about a procedural one (like C, Java, Basic, etc), a declarative
one (like Prolog, Haskell, Erlang, make, etc), a structural one
(like the various neural networks or cellular automata), or
one of the other myriad paths that have been followed in the last
60 years?
> Simple is good for beginners. Complex is good for hackers. But does
> there have to be a divide? Does the learner have to jump from one
> to the other?
I don't think that there needs to be a divide between simple
and complex, but there are definitely divides between different
kinds of complex, and switching between them often takes a bit
of jumping.
Making a system where there is a divide between simple and
complex is certainly cheaper, though.
- Alex
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why java is (not) bad for Mindstorms
|
| Kev (...) everything (...) Why not? Why couldn't the original RIS language interface have had a button to press which converted your program to a textual form like a conventional language? And this textual language had all the extra goodies that (...) (19 years ago, 23-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
