Subject:
|
RoboLab vs. RIS 2.0 - real difference in capabilities?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:55:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2900 times
|
| |
|
|
Please pardon if this is an oft-discussed issue... like anything dealing with
programming languages, it’s probably a hot-button for some folks, but here goes.
I’ve tried both RoboLab and RIS for a while, and I found RIS to be much easier
to use. RoboLab seems to require a lot more “busy work” (like the “wiring”
notion and use of separate “modifier” objects) to get things done.
I’ve gotten the idea that RoboLab has capabilities that RIS doesn’t, making it
more suitable for “serious” teams. However, I’m wondering if that idea might be
a holdover from pre-2.0 versions of RIS, which apparently didn’t have variables
or branching (surely a serious limitation).
If there are real limitations to RIS that are going to constrain my kids in the
future, we can bite the bullet and try to get comfy with RoboLab. Before I go
down that path, though, I’d like to know what are the *specific* things that you
can do with RoboLab that you can’t with RIS 2.0? The handbook over at
fll-freak.com only says
RIS is not as capable as RoboLab. Some features of the RCX are
simply not available.
So my question is... like what? Anybody used both of these? In particular, has
anybody switched from RIS to RoboLab because they ran into a wall with RIS that
they couldn’t overcome? Conversely, are there specific features of RIS 2.0 that
RoboLab can’t match (like “My Big Blocks”, for example)?
Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
2 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
