Subject:
|
Re: Why java is (not) bad for Mindstorms
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:12:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1686 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, "T. Alexander Popiel" <popiel@wolfskeep.com> wrote:
> 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?
I'd like my NXT to be self aware, straight out of the box. Am I asking too much?
:-)
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why java is (not) bad for Mindstorms
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
|
|
