Subject:
|
Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 May 1999 23:17:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1060 times
|
| |
|
|
John A. Tamplin <jat@liveonthenet.com> wrote:
> 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.
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);
And that compiles to:
push 20
push MOTOR1
syscall set_motor_speed
... or whatever your coding scheme requires for a system library function
call, there is no difference between that and:
set_motor_speed MOTOR1, 20 // set_motor_speed is an opcode in the byte code
... except the encoding.
Encoding is an implementation detail. Can we talk about features?
-Kekoa
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
