Subject:
|
Re: What I would do (2)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:46:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1920 times
|
| |
|
|
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?
I'd say: Go for the NXT thing! Give us a language that utilizes the NXT as
much as possible.
As the NXT is both faster and has more memory than RCX (not to mention the
CyberMaster, which is all I have for the moment) it doesn't seem
unreasonable to guess that someone will write an RCX emulator for NXT if
there is an actual demand. No need for NXT_NQC to take on that task.
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://web.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://web.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
