Subject:
|
Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 May 1999 21:35:25 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
John A. Tamplin <jat@!SayNoToSpam!liveonthenet.com>
|
Viewed:
|
1001 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 3 May 1999, Kekoa Proudfoot wrote:
> My thoughts on the JVM:
>
> - too complicated for what we need or want
I guess that depends on who you talk to. Personally, I want an object
oriented language with multithreading support. I want to be able to write
generic code that can be reused in multiple applications (ie, here is a
module that follows a line, here is another that avoids obstacles, I would
like to be able to combine them with minimal wrapper code and have a bot that
follows a line but avoids obstacles it hits on the line).
JVM certainly has a number of features (particularly security) which are
not required for the RCX, but it isn't clear that you save a whole lot
cutting them out.
> - no direct support for interfacing with the RCX
Neither does C or any other existing language. Machine manipulation is
typically defined in system calls in the OS or libraries linked into the
application, and Java would be no different. You simply define native
methods for raw hardware/OS access.
> I envision the new byte code being specific to the RCX, and as simple as
> possible to get the job done, which is the exact opposite of the JVM in
> those regards.
As simple as possible to get which job done? Some people would consider
the existing RCX bytecodes sufficient to get the job done, while others
may want exceptions, threads, etc. People wanting a simpler interface can
use a subset of the environment, but people wanting a richer environment
can't fake it on a simple one.
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:
 | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) I don't deny that these are reasonable things to want. But you don't need the JVM to get these. The problem with the JVM is that there is so much extra fluff associated with Java. You mentioned 64-bit floats and ints, security, etc. Why start (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) My thoughts on the JVM: - too complicated for what we need or want - no direct support for interfacing with the RCX I envision the new byte code being specific to the RCX, and as simple as possible to get the job done, which is the exact (...) (25 years ago, 3-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
|
|
|
|
