 | | Re: Something else is needed, I think... —Mark Tarrabain
| | | | Java is a very good language, but *NOT* a very good choice of language for robot control. Java's greatest strength is its portability, but portable programs in hardware like the RCX, are not likely to accomplish much. (Have you ever tried to write a (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Something else is needed, I think... —John A. Tamplin
| | | | | (...) Don't forget writing the bytecode interpreter. With JVM, we just have to port that. Writing a bytecode interpreter that is fast, general purpose, supports multithreading & synchronization etc. is no small task. (...) Java would not be used for (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Something else is needed, I think... —Kekoa Proudfoot
| | | | | (...) ??? I think you are making a new interpreter sound harder than it really is. The standard firmware might not be incredibly fast, but it certainly supports multithreading, and synchronization wouldn't be hard to add. The only challenging thing (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Something else is needed, I think... —John A. Tamplin
| | | | | (...) I think the basic issue here is we have different ideas in what we want in this interpreted language. You seem to want something closer to the current bytecode, while I want something closer to Java/C++. Certainly if you lower the requirements (...) (25 years ago, 4-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | | |
