Subject:
|
RE: New Lego challenge !
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Sep 1999 23:43:37 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Joel Shafer <joel@connect.net[ihatespam]>
|
Viewed:
|
659 times
|
| |
|
|
At 12:52 PM 9/13/99 +0000, you wrote:
<snip>
> I rememeber a thread a while back arguing about the "elegegance"
> of recurion and that it can almost always be represented by
> other non-recursive algorithms. The argument was about the difference
> between the memory use on the return stack during recursion
> versus the memory used to represent the problem non-recursively....
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ralph Hempel - P.Eng
The argument quickly turned into one of our definition wars about what
exactly is recursion.
Joel Shafer joel@connect.net
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | RE: New Lego challenge !
|
| <snipped discussion about recursive vs non-recursive> (...) Joel, could you please define definition war more exactly? And maybe give an example of why it's not recursive... Cheers, Ralph Hempel - P.Eng ---...--- Check out pbFORTH for LEGO (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Lego challenge !
|
| (...) Yes, unfortunately the current firmware implementation from LEGO doesn't have a call stack, so you can not build recursive routines. :-( On the other hand I can imagine labyrinths where that bot would never be able to do anything out of them. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
22 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
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
