Subject:
|
Re: Some comments (long)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Fri, 7 May 1999 15:33:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1443 times
|
| |
|
|
"Mark R. David" wrote:
> But, is that what legOS is? Trying to remember back to the genesis of this thread
> - is the only complaint about legOS that it's too difficult to
> install/learn/program in? Or are there limitations in legOS that would be overcome
> in a complete re-architecture of the bytecode? (I'm planning to jump into legOS
> and find out for myself, soon - as soon as I "finish" my current bot.)
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 C programming
experience). NQC, or something similar, has the merit of being "small" and thereby
feasibly learnable by people who don't have any programming exerience at all before
playing around with the RCX. My 15 year old quickly recognized the limitations of the
RIS system and I pointed him towards other options like NQC and LegOS. He had no
problems learning NQC but even after grasping the basic concepts behind C as
implemented in NQC, he found LegOS intimidating.
> > Mark
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Some comments (long)
|
| (...) 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)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
