Subject:
|
Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Nov 1999 19:33:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
504 times
|
| |
|
|
Jonathan Perret wrote:
>
> > I can answer part of your question. There are those amongst us
> > who are pretty good with a soldering iron but who are not as
> > familiar with software tools.
>
> Yeah, that's what I suspected in fact. My training and experience
> as a software engineer made me forget what it was to be faced with
> an unknown, complex programming language. I've been assuming
> everyone would be fluent in C ;-)
>
> On the other hand, I wish I knew how to even hold a soldering iron -
> I'm still trying to understand what a resistor is used for in a
> circuit.
>
> I may be biased but I feel it's not too hard even for a total
> newcomer to learn programming by oneself. Every bookshop has
> literally thousands of books aiming at the beginning programmer.
>
> But I have yet to find a book that will explain to me the basics
> of electronics (past Ohm's Law I mean). Does any of the
> circuit-heads round here have a book (or a website) to recommend
> for those like me who are willing to understand how to build
> simple circuits ?
Go to Radio Shack and get "Getting Started in Electronics" by Forrest M. Mims.
Its easy, accurate, and quickly usable knowledge. The book is 8.5"x11" and
about .25" think with a green cover. After that look at any of his topical
books (sensors, ICs, etc.), these are smaller sized (8"x5") with white covers.
Good luck and good learning.
-Wes
> > My personal interest in replacing my RCX by a handyboard in a lego
> > compatible enclosure is driven by the knowledge that I can easily
> > program the HC11 in assembly language and download the code into
> > the chip by well documented functions in the CPU. And straightforward
> > 68 family assembly language is so simple compared with the arcane
> > pbForth which is touted as the "assembler" for the RCX.
>
> Hmm, the assembler for the RCX is just H8k assembler, which granted
> is not as well known as 68k assembler, but I don't expect it to be
> really more complex. But if you already know 68k of course...
>
> The advantage of pbForth (as I see it) is that it allows one to
> build programs that are as almost as close to the hardware as
> assembler would allow, while not having to learn yet another
> assembly language.
>
> > I agree though, definitely not Basic! Anything but that!
>
> Basic is fine for prototyping. Even for writing the programs.
> But having the microcontroller *interpret* a Basic program
> seems like a total waste of time and RAM to me. Why can't
> the Basic programs be compiled and then downloaded to the MC ?
>
> Cheers,
> --Jonathan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx
|
| (...) Yeah, that's what I suspected in fact. My training and experience as a software engineer made me forget what it was to be faced with an unknown, complex programming language. I've been assuming everyone would be fluent in C ;-) On the other (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
