To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.roboticsOpen lugnet.robotics in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Robotics / 3505
3504  |  3506
Subject: 
Re: NQC v. LegOS
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.robotics
Date: 
Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:57:50 GMT
Original-From: 
Luis Villa <liv@duke*nomorespam*.edu>
Viewed: 
1327 times
  
On Sat, 6 Feb 1999, Mark Tarrabain wrote:

NQC's primary advantage over LegOS is that it's easier to install and operate.

I run Linux. I sneer at "easy installation." :-)

LegOS's primary advantage, on the other
hand, is that it gives you a full C programming language to work with, so you can
have your own struct types, more variables, and as a native code compiler, it gives
you full access to the RCX's capabilities.

Maybe Markus can answer this better, but is it full C? I got the
impression that the H8300 patch to gcc had some limitations. Am I correct in
this? If so, what are those limitations/shortcomings?

NQC programs can only operate the RCX
in the way that LEGO's operating system which is uploaded to the RCX as "firmware"
allows.  It is this "firmware" that LegOS replaces.  An RCX running LegOS programs
won't be able to run normal Mindstorms programs until the the normal "firmware"
code has been re-uploaded back into the RCX.

Ahh. I see. I didn't realize why NQC had problems- I thought the limitations
in the stuff that comes from Lego was in the language, not the firmware.

To the best of my knowledge LegOS, shares none of the weaknesses that NQC has.  The
only disadvantage to LegOS that I can see is that it's not particularly simple.  It
makes me think of the idea of using a firehose to put out a small kitchen fire
instead of using a handheld fire extinguisher.  NQC, following this analogy, would
amount to something less than a fire extinguisher, in my opinion... probably the
equivalent of a single bucket of water.

Thanks for the input, Mark. I intend to use this for some pretty serious
programming, so it's not much of a "fire hose" for me.

Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics

Yes, I did ;)

-Luis

#######################################################################

     "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
          "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler

#######################################################################
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: NQC v. LegOS
 
(...) It isn't a patch for gcc -- the H8300 is a supported target. The only limitations are that the processor has 16-bit ints, which when you start to include traditional libc functions, can require some porting effort, as with other code that you (...) (25 years ago, 7-Feb-99, to lugnet.robotics)
  Re: NQC v. LegOS / size
 
Hi Luis, (...) I like your attitude ;-) There's a new precompiled package of H8 tools for Windows around (~8MB zipped, ~22MB installed), courtesy of Dave Madden. My precompiled Linux/glibc package (~1.5MB gzipped, ~3.4 MB installed) is equally easy (...) (25 years ago, 7-Feb-99, to lugnet.robotics)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: NQC v. LegOS
 
(...) NQC's primary advantage over LegOS is that it's easier to install and operate. LegOS requires a lot more "stuff" that people just wanting to play with the RCX probably wouldn't care that much about. LegOS's primary advantage, on the other (...) (25 years ago, 6-Feb-99, to lugnet.robotics)

23 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR