Subject:
|
FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 May 1999 23:44:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1072 times
|
| |
|
|
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Hempel [mailto:rhempel@bmts.com]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 1999 7:07 PM
To: Mark Tarrabain
Subject: RE: Something else is needed, I think...
Mark wrote:
> > It is TOTALLY self contained - if you don't count NQC to get the firmware loaded in
> > the first place.
>
> Then it's not self contained on TWO counts.
>
> One, as you mentioned, you need NQC to get the firmware into the RCX, but I suppose you can
> just as easily use a pre-built version of firmdl, so I won't nitpick about that.
>
> The other way in which is it not self-contained is that it requires a form of dumb-terminal
> interface to the IR port which communicates with the RCX.
>
> I'm not saying that the pbForth project is no good. I think it's an amazing achievement, and
> quite practical because most real-world robot coding these days is actually done in Forth. I
> do think, however, that it would be more practical to create a Forth bytecode producer for a
> home computer and then download that bytecode into the rcx. Then the rcx only needs to
> interpret the bytecode rather than also having to change source code into bytecode. Further, I
> don't really care for the idea using a dumb terminal to develop software (we did it that way
> back when I was in University and it sucked). I would imagine that I'm in the majority on this
> viewpoint, but having never taken a poll of any sort, I suppose I could be wrong. This is just
> all IMHO, of course.
The FORTH bytecode producer is an UMBILICAL forth, and then you need one for the PC, for the MAC,
for linux boxes, you get the picture. If the RCX interprets the code, then it HAS to work.
Eventually we could make a headerless FORTH image that is way smaller, but let's walk before
we run...
I guess I've focussed so much on the host platform being as simple as a dumb
terminal that I lost sight of what users actually want. Even the original RCX
and legOS software need the PC to transmit the firmware to the RCX. You don't NEED
to use a dumb terminal - it's the minimum tool for the job. If you want to write and
debug and then use a GUI - that's cool. I just packaged the minimum set to get
folks using pbFORTH - then they might know what the GUI or higher level interface should do.
Sort of a develop the tool with the user approach, not hand the user a tool that no
user has ever tested approach.
Cheers,
Ralph Hempel - P.Eng
--------------------------------------------------------
Check out pbFORTH for LEGO Mindstorms at:
<http://www.bmts.com/~rhempel/lego/pbFORTH/default.html>
--------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: rhempel at bmts dot com
------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) The problem is he doesn't understand how forth works (no offense intended). Basically, all you save is the actual parser -- there is no "compiler". A typical forth implementation (and I have no idea if this relates to pbForth at all) (...) (26 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | Re: FW: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| I've been reading all this discussion of an new OS for the RCX (or whatever it will be) with great interest. I know I'm out of this discussion/development from the start due not having much low level knowledge on what you are all talking about, but (...) (26 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
32 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
