Subject:
|
Re: What I would do (2)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:03:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1820 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Ed Manlove wrote:
> Rereading the Wired article I would rethink the portability of the motor/sensor
> code (2 wire vs. 6 wire connectors). But what you get with UCOS-II is
> essentially what is described in Sections 1-2 of "Introduction to the legOS
> kernel" [Stig Nielsson, Sept. 27, 2000,
> http://legos.sourceforge.net/docs/kerneldoc.ps] or two thirds of a NXT RTOS.
> All that is left is writing the motor/sensor code (and the firmware downloader,
> Bluetooth code, sample applications, documentation, etc.) But this remaining
> third is the fairly simple given information about the hardware is known.
>
> Ed
I would be in favor of having a port of BrickOS for NXT (instead of having
another thing to learn). I'm not gonna throw away my RCXs and I would prefer
having similar languages for both bricks. Yes programmers would need to know
the nuances when programming for a particular target, but people successfully
manage that with NQC (there are certain things supported depending on the
target:RCX/Scout/Spybotics/CM/etc.)
Hopefully I can keep the number of Mindstorms languages I need to be proficient
with down to 2 regardless of what brick I am using. NQC when the standard
firmware is enough, and BrickOS when more flexibility is needed.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What I would do (2)
|
| (...) Very good point! So one design goal/guiding principle would be try not to break brickOS programs for NXT and provide if nessecary a easy software upgrade path. (...) I would really like to point out (to the general audience) what I see as a (...) (18 years ago, 27-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: What I would do (2)
|
| (...) I like this concept, but what if in the case of NQC the new firmware turns out to be such a radically different design that it makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to carry over very much of the rather large API built into NQC to (...) (18 years ago, 31-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What I would do (2)
|
| (...) Alexander, What you are describing seems more like an end application (multiple autonomous robots that do X and Y and can communicate using Bluetooth) then an RTOS design. An analogy of your description of using the NXT processor for just the (...) (18 years ago, 26-Jan-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
24 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
|
|
|
|
