 | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) Wrong. Because we could design the instruction set from scratch ourselves, a small set of instructions could be included in the entire instruction set which do things require a great deal of regular machine instructions to do. (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
|
(...) Well, having a bytecode for turning on a motor seems little benefit compared to calling a library function to do it. From the user's point of view, the effort and the result are similar. (...) Actually, you need to have a call stack and a (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
|
(...) Sorry to step in here. But there is no difference (as I see it) between having a system library function that runs the motors and having a byte code that runs the motors. It's all a matter of encoding. If I say: set_motor_speed(MOTOR1, 20); (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
|
(...) That was my point, that it was not a benefit for having an interpreted "machine language" over using native machine language. The only benefits are portability and error checking, and the error checking is problematic when you get to that low (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
