Subject:
|
Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 2 May 1999 20:45:33 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
John A. Tamplin <JAT@LIVEONTHENET.stopspamCOM>
|
Viewed:
|
946 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sun, 2 May 1999, Mark Tarrabain wrote:
> 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.
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 huge task, trust me), you are better off using another
OS that has the capability to do what you want and adding something else on
top of it.
From my understanding of what you want, the big problem with LegOS is having
to link your code into the OS. You could write a generic "loader" program
as what was linked into the OS, and then download individual programs to run.
If these are native programs, then you will have to either produce position
independent code (which I am not sure is possible on the H8 and would
certainly be much less efficient) or relocate it as it is loaded. A full
relocating linker would eat up a lot of space in the RCX, but the alternative
would be to use some interpreted language. The interpreter would certainly
take a lot of space as well. If you go that route, you might want to use
pBforth and compile your language into forth, since it already has the
"interpreter" builtin.
John A. Tamplin Traveller Information Services
jat@LiveOnTheNet.COM 2104 West Ferry Way
256/705-7007 - FAX 256/705-7100 Huntsville, AL 35801
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | LegOS HOWTO
|
| Considering the recent discussion on this list, I figure this is as good a time as any to point out that my LegOS HOWTO is now posted at (URL) don't be intimidated! I have aimed this page squarely at anyone with a bare minimum of C or C++ (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) ^^^...^^^ That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
