Subject:
|
Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 May 1999 06:59:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
865 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm just wondering how many people agree with me on this point...
I think that another code development system is needed for the RCX.
Why?
Well, it seems like everything that's already out there is either
overkill (legos, pbforth for rcx), or suffers from limitations imposed
by the standard rcx firmware (mindstorms, nqc, et al).
I believe that in terms of complexity, something halfway between legos
and nqc is needed. Something like the Handyboard's Interactive C for
the RCX would be about what I might imagine for such a middle-ground
development system. The first phase of such a project would doubtless
be to write an alternative firmware that is more accomodating to complex
programs than the exiisting firmware. I would not expect this new
firmware to be in any way compatible with the old. Making a compiler
that would work with this new firmware would have the benefit of being
more flexible than nqc because the old firmware's limitations (such as
32 integer variables, and no local variables) could be eliminated, and
more practical than legos because it would undoubtably be much more
lightweight than the legos package along with a full-blown H8
cross-compiler.
Just a thought.
> > Mark
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) Sorry to disagree, but I think we already have a very good range of developing systems: (1) The LEGO software for newbies, (2) RcxCC + NQC + Spirit.ocx for the large majority of the projects, and (3) LegOS for those who want to go beyond the (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) Well, that was what I thought, and I set out to do such a thing way back at the beginning. But the lack of enthusiasm was amazing (possibly not for the basic concept; the alternative hypothesis is that, since I'm a programming language (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) I agree on this point. I've been forced to move to legOS not by intrinsic NQC limitations but by those imposed by the RCX firmware. I still prefer to use RcxCC/NQC when I don't need legOS: programs load much faster, it's a pleasant and (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) I don't know if you guys realize this but if anything like this is ever done we must definitely remain compatible (at least partially) with Spirit.ocx protocols. The Spirit.ocx control is a HUGE bonus we must not throw away!! It makes possible (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| Mark Tarrabain: Dave Baum: John A. Tamplin: Kekoa Proudfoot: Ralph Hempel: Luis Villa: et al: In the late '60s I had a '57 VW Bug ... absolutely loved it! But, it didn't go fast enough. So I replaced the engine with a 1500 cc. model. It went faster, (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
67 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
