Subject:
|
Re: Thoughts on NQC for Scout
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 21 Nov 1999 12:13:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1842 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave,
I agree with you--Lego should make the byte codes public. I think NQC has
sold quite a few RCX's and it's foolish of them not give out this info. It
could only help them. I can see that it isn't a simple thing to add Scout
support to NQC and to have to hack the byte codes as well is too much. So
Lego, are you listening?
Mike
Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote in message
news:dbaum-2011991158030001@207-229-149-233.d.enteract.com...
> With the advent of the Scout SDK, several people have asked me if I plan
> on making NQC available for Scout. I thought it would be appropriate to
> summarize my position on this and post it...
>
> The Scout SDK looks quite interesting - clearly the Scout is much more
> flexible than initially assumed by most advanced users. The SDK also
> provides a nice set of tools to program the Scout in assembly language
> from a PC.
>
> However, for those already using NQC - or those who prefer a C-style
> syntax to assembler - the Scout assembler isn't quite enough. Ideally, I
> would like to allow NQC to target the Scout. However, in order to do this
> I will need to know the Scout's download protocol and its bytecode format.
>
> I suspect the official line from Lego is presently something like this:
> "use the ScoutDos.exe assembler as a back end for NQC". This would work
> for Windows. This will not work for the Macintosh or Linux. Since I use
> Macintosh and Linux far more than I use Windows, I have no interest in
> creating a Windows-only solution. If it can't be made portable, I don't
> want to write it.
>
> Similarly, the ScoutDOS.exe has some significant limitations in its
> license. Anything developed with it cannot be used in any way with
> commercial implications. That's pretty broad. Perhaps unenforceably
> broad. NQC is free software - and its current licensing is incompatible
> with the Scout SDK license. I do not want to create "NQC for Scout" such
> that it is no longer free software and requires the user to carry the
> baggage of the Scout SDK license.
>
> As I see it, there are three alternatives here:
>
> 1) Hack it - specifically hack the download protocol and bytecodes. This
> is the path that was taken for the RCX, and it really didn't take very
> long, but then again several people were highly motivated to crack it. At
> this point, I've got an RCX and I'm not that motivated to crack the
> Scout. I'm willing to add Scout support to NQC (which is by no means a
> trivial task), but I see no reason to make it more tedious by hacking the
> protocols as well.
>
> 2) Get official information from Lego. Quite simply, I don't see what
> Lego has to gain by keeping the download protocol and bytecodes secret.
> They will come out eventually - why not use this as an opportunity for
> Lego to demontstrate that they are willing to support the notion of open
> software for their programmable products.
>
> 3) Forget it - no NQC for Scout. Personally this is OK with me. I have
> more than enough RCX's and don't need to use a Scout for possible
> expansion. The Scout can do some interesting things, but nothing
> compelling enough for me to abandon using the RCX as my primary
> programmable brick.
>
> Dave Baum
>
> --
> reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Thoughts on NQC for Scout
|
| With the advent of the Scout SDK, several people have asked me if I plan on making NQC available for Scout. I thought it would be appropriate to summarize my position on this and post it... The Scout SDK looks quite interesting - clearly the Scout (...) (27 years ago, 20-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
