 | | Re: Some comments (long) —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | (...) Could you explain what you mean by this, exactly? I would have figured that if a new interpreter is designed from scratch, the lengths of the opcodes could be hard-coded into the interpreter in some way. I was not suggesting that any existing (...) (26 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Some comments (long) —Kekoa Proudfoot
|
| | | | (...) Assuming you use the ROM to receive things, which would be prudent in terms of space but not strictly necessary, the lengths of the opcodes in the message receiving code are determined by the lowest three bits of the opcode: 0 means length 0, (...) (26 years ago, 6-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Some comments (long) —Mark R. David
|
| | | | (...) At the risk of splintering the development efforts here from 2 to three, I've been wondering the same thing. I guess I'm not as concerned with ensuring that my existing OCX code works - I'd rather see any new OS make the RCX "be all that it (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Some comments (long) —Mark Tarrabain
|
| | | | (...) There are no limitations in LegOS at all that I am aware of. The biggest problems with LegOS are the size of and number of tools required work with it and the learning curve for people who don't have any prior programming experience (let alone (...) (26 years ago, 7-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
