Subject:
|
Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 May 1999 18:17:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
901 times
|
| |
|
|
Laurentino Martins wrote:
> Now I believe there is too big gap between NQC and LegOS,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is exactly the point that I was trying to make.
> and maybe there should be made some effort for creating a reliable LegOS setup for Windows based PCs. I'm thinking in a InstallShield type of setup that setups everything with a few clicks, installs some IDE editor (and F1 key help) and is ready to start compiling after that.
Again, though, such a system would bear the incredible weight of having a full-blown C/C++ cross-compiler and linking system as being part of the package.
Making legos web-based is not a horrible solution, but produces other problems for things such as separately compilable modules. Further, a web solution may be lightweight on the user's end, but it isn't as convenient as having a solution on one's home computer because unless the person happens to have a permanent internet connection,
it does require dialing up one's ISP first.
> LegOS is already an established platform, so instead of shorting the gap, we should build some bridges instead.
I do not believe that a "bridge" is possible. LegOS and NQC function on two radically different premises -- the former requiring nothing beyond the hardware, the latter requiring the hardware and an acknowledgeably limited firmware. It would seem to me that what lies exactly in the middle is something which requires the hardware (of
course) and the presence of a firmware that happens to be more robust than the one included with the Mindstorms RIS. The two most annoying limitations of the RCX standard firmware are, IMO, the 32 variable limit per program, and the inabilty to have local variables (in the true sense of the term). I do not believe that it is viable to
make a new firmware that is backwards compatible with the standard firmware without sharing most of its same limitations. If I am wrong, then a bridge may prove to be quite feasible.
> > Mark
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | RE: Something else is needed, I think...(long)
|
| (...) I think there IS a bridge, and it's pbFORTH (and since I wrote it I like it :) Here is why I think the current pbFORTH is like the bridge you describe: 1. You don't need the GNU compiler set up to use pbFORTH. I used it to originally write (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) The point is that you still need some OS running on the bare hardware. The standard firmware isn't going to let you do what you need, and you still need something like LegOS anyway. Unless you want to recreate an OS from scratch (which is a (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) two radically different premises -- the former requiring nothing beyond the hardware, the latter requiring the hardware and an acknowledgeably limited firmware. It would seem to me that what lies exactly in the middle is something which (...) (25 years ago, 2-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
67 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
|
|
|
|
