Subject:
|
Re: What I would do (2)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 1 Feb 2006 01:44:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1774 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, John Hansen wrote:
> [...]
> unlikely event that it does I am seeking NQC user feedback. Which is more
> important: API compatibility or Performance?
>
> John Hansen
Definitely performance!
Trying to porting an old RCX program to the NXT would be near impossible --
everything is so different there. Just as you'd have to totally rebuild your
robot, you have to do a total rewrite of your code anyway. So backwards
compatibility is really a non-issue.
The only thing I would try to keep the same is the general 'C'-like syntax.
Everything else I imagine would be different. Hopefully there would be real
functions, so inlining would be an optimization like it should be, rather than
the only option, and the 'subroutines' could go away. I hope it would be
possible to include a lot more C-like functionality, like arrays, structs, ways
to pass parameters and return values. (Definitely keep the the C++ '&' operator
included for pass-by-reference parameters though!) So maybe instead of NQC, (Not
Quite C) it could be called MLC - More Like C. (pronounced "Milk"?) Or SLC -
Something Like C. (pronounced "Slick"?)
Perhaps for a few basic functions it might make sense to have similar names and
functionality, but even there I would also like a new set of functions that make
use of all the new features.
I'm really looking forward to what you come up with! I've used NQC and BricxCC
almost exclusively for the RCX! Thanks so much for maintaining and improving
them over the years!
--
David Schilling
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: What I would do (2)
|
| (...) Absolutely. I think the design of the NXT NQC should be dependent on the standard firmware just as NQC was based on the RCX firmware. David nailed exactly what I'm interested in. Even when using NQC it still **feels** like I'm writing in C. It (...) (18 years ago, 1-Feb-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
