Subject:
|
Re: Why [no single language] is good for Mindstorms
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:49:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2117 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Steve Hassenplug wrote:
> I think you could ask anyone that uses a computer, and a VERY LARGE percentage
> will tell you using the graphical environment of Windows or Mac is easier than a
> text-based language like Linux. Of course some will tell you they don't have an
> icon for Linux?!? And, yes, a very few will say they prefer the command prompt
> to a mouse.
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 and dropping icons representing letters and numbers into a graphical
editor? No they don't. They do use a graphical user interface (a web browser)
to type in the text they wish to post. A full-featured integrated development
environment for text-based languages is a GUI - not a command prompt.
> But, if you were going to make a single system for everyone, make it graphic.
All the IDEs I know of for programming LEGO bricks are graphical user
interfaces. I would wager that most (if not 100% of) NQC, brickOS, and leJOS
users on Linux use a graphical text editor (with windows and a mouse pointer) to
write their programs.
> However, I don't
> agree that either LEGO's RIS software or RoboLab is unstable.
> In five years of
> FLL coaching, I've never had any problems with them being unstable OR buggy.
Did you use RIS 1.0 and RoboLab 1.0? Did you ever try to use events in RoboLab?
Here are links to the bugs fixed in service packs just since version 2.5 was
released.
http://www.ceeo.tufts.edu/robolabatceeo/downloads/Service_Pack/servicepack1bugs.asp
http://www.ceeo.tufts.edu/robolabatceeo/downloads/Service_Pack/pack12bugs.asp
http://www.ceeo.tufts.edu/robolabatceeo/Downloads/Service_Pack/RL254_CPatch.asp
In the unofficial FLL FAQ in Q12.14 the author says:
"Be aware of a minor bug in RoboLab. The sub-vi diagram will have begin and end
terminals. The terminal labels are swapped, but the program will function
properly. Use the text tool to rename the terminals."
http://fll-freak.home.comcast.net/faq/faq_robolab.htm
That sounds kind of like a typo to me...
A huge fan of RoboLab (Thomas Johnson) said this about a year ago:
"Robolab is just a LabVIEW program. Viewed in that context, it is an amazing bit
of coding. I'm a G programmer myself and am very impressed w/what the folks at
Tufts did."
"However, if you lack that context, I imagine that Robolab is tremendously
frustrating. The environment is loaded w/LabVIEW artifacts that must just seem
weird, the documentation is pitiful at best, I've yet to find a decent tutorial,
and previous versions were quite buggy."
http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/rcx/robolab/?n=362
> In fact, over the years, with all the programs I've created, or watched other
> people create, I've NEVER seen a typo in the graphic environments of RIS or
> Robolab.
A typo in RIS or RoboLab is called wiring in a motor A forward block when you
meant to wire in a motor B forward block. You know you've seen (and made
yourself) the functional equivalent to typos in graphical environments such as
RIS or RoboLab. But unlike full-featured IDEs which have things like code
completion and code insight you are unlikely to find a graphical programming
environment which can help prevent a graphical typo from occurring. Powerful
IDEs for text-based languages do have just such features and they work to
increase the rate of learning and the productivity of a software developer by
several fold.
> On the other hand, just slightly more (than never) is the number of times I've
> seen a text-based program compile on the first attempt, with NO syntax errors.
I am certain you must have seen many graphical programs not compile on the first
attempt. I haven't even coached FLL for five years and I've seen dozens and
dozens of graphical programs which were not able to compile without corrections.
I've seen a number of graphical programs which couldn't even be saved until
corrections were made sufficient to meet the graphical environment's top secret
savability criteria.
> > The latter is far more beneficial to a child's learning experience than the
> > former.
>
> I really want to agree here. But I can't. I'd have to ask exactly what this
> child is trying to learn.
I think it is obvious that the child (or adult) is trying to learn how to write
programs which make their robot do what they want it to do, presumably
progressing over time from simple things to more complex things. The easier it
is for them to learn how to write these programs the more likely they will have
fun playing with their NXT set. And the easier it is for them to transition to
more and more powerful programming capabilities the more years they are likely
to retain their interest in their NXT set. If they can't figure out how to make
the robot work because the tool is unintelligible, slow, unstable, and buggy
then they will quickly move on to something else (or, as is far more likely, to
an easy to learn and use text-based language and the IDEs which support it).
John Hansen
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 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 (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (18 years ago, 25-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
|
|
|
|
