Subject:
|
Re: What I would do (2)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:37:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1737 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, John Hansen wrote:
>
> Would you prefer that NQC work miracles (at the expense of performance) to keep
> the NXT API as much as possible directly compatible with the RCX2 API or would
> you prefer that NQC work as close to the metal as possible at the expense of API
> compatibility? By "work miracles" I mean something along the lines of "generate
> lots of extra code behind the scenes as needed, including such things as hidden
> tasks and subroutines which act as helpers to the NXT version of the NQC API".
>
> I'm not saying that this will turn out to be the case, but it could. And in the
> unlikely event that it does I am seeking NQC user feedback. Which is more
> important: API compatibility or Performance?
The optimum solution would be both - provide a new API that gets the most out of
the new firmware, but an optional "compatability layer" that adds what is
necessary to provide an API compatable with the RCX. Note that I'd vote to get
the new API done first :)
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
