Subject:
|
Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 May 1999 08:53:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
868 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Mark Tarrabain writes:
> 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.
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 efficient IDE and I don't need to use tools I don't know well.
legOS is definitely complex to set up for non Linux/Unix users. I had to learn
a lot of things about a whole new world to get it hosted on my Windows based
PC. If I ever decide to get Linux installed on any machine, I don't want this
to depend on legOS.
> 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.
I agree again. IMO, speed of interpreted code is not an issue. I never had a
speed problem using NQC. I would love to have a new firmware permanently
loaded on my RCX but with some limitations removed. I would suggest more
variables, long integers, and arrays, just to start :-)
I must admit I still didn't give a chance to pbForth. I promise I'll have a
look at it. If I understand well what Ralph did, he took the original firmware
as disassembled by Kekoa and built its OS on that. This is probably the same
kind of work we need to be done if we want a new firmware.
Ralph and Kekoa might be the most qualified persons to answer the question: is
it possible to write a modified version of the firmware in a way to save most
of the useful parts of it but override some of its limitations?
If yes, the second question would be: WHO is going to do this? :)
In lugnet.robotics, John A. Tamplin writes:
> From my understanding of what you want, the big problem with legOS is having
> to link your code into the OS.
You got the point. To link your program into the OS, you must have to whole
toolchain to cross-compile the OS itself.
Mario
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Something else is needed, I think...
|
| 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
