Subject:
|
Re: What I would do (2)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 1 Feb 2006 02:53:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2566 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, David Schilling wrote:
> 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.
> David Schilling
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 will be far easier to port the logic of a program if the
syntax is very close. I fully expect the actual API to change (and for the
functionallity of the language to improve to take advantage of the abilities
within the new firmware/hardware).
So to sum up, I would like all the programming I do (NXT and RCX) to have the
same flavor (just as NQC and BrickOS have the same flavor now). Does that make
sense?
-Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What I would do (2)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 1-Feb-06, to lugnet.robotics)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
