 | | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx —Jonathan Perret
|
| | | (...) What I've always wondered about the Basic Stamp is why anyone would want to use Basic to program an microcontroller. I love Basic but when coding for a robot I want to take full advantage of the hardware, and that means programming it in Forth (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx —Wes Matchett
|
| | | | | The reason I use NQC and have not gone to legOS is related to the rest of my life. I am a software consultant - I write programs all day long. I prefer to focus on the mechanical aspect of robotics instead of the programming. So far NQC has not (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx —Jeremy Crook
|
| | | | | (...) Hi Jonathan good to hear from you. I think the reasons that people are tempted to use a Basic programmable microcontroller are :- ()familiarity with the language structure and syntax ()speed with which you can develop and debug software as (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx —Vlad Dumitrescu
|
| | | | (...) Let me give you my reasons: right now, legOS is difficult to set up and get running (at least 0.2.2 from W98), while I experience Forth a little "strange" yet (= a totaly different metaphor, it takes time to adjust to it). Adding to that, it (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx —Graham Stalker-Wilde
|
| | | | (...) I can't speak about LegOS, but I thought this about FORTH too, and it aint so. Once you get over the syntax it’s a straightforward procedural language. Jonathan Knudsen’s book has a good chapter on it that I found very helpful in getting (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx —Vlad Dumitrescu
|
| | | | (...) Yes, I agree with you, mostly. I have been programming in Forth before, and it slowly comes back. What I meant to say is that the stack oriented architecture is different than C, for example, and (for me, at least) a mental switch is needed in (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | RE: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx —Ralph Hempel
|
| | | | (...) It's funny, but a lot of what you need to do to write good Forth is done for you under the hood by C compilers. The wierd thing is that a C compiler intermingles data and return values on one stack while Forth separates them. (...) Now that (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx —Vlad Dumitrescu
|
| | | | (...) I agree that Forth is better than many other languages in many ways. What I was saying was that it has a different look-and-feel and one needs to get used to it first. Plus that it is not very easy to switch from for example C to Forth and (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx —Sergey Udovenko
|
| | | | (...) was (...) But very refreshing gymnastic, isn't it? ;-) Sergey (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
