Subject:
|
Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:41:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1811 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, lego-robotics@crynwr.com (Jonathan Perret) writes:
> I don't mean to say that NQC is not an outstanding tool, I just
> don't understand why people who are ready to mess with electronics
> to build homemade sensors don't take the plunge and code directly
> to the metal...
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 is a challenge in itself to make something useful with a
clumsy tool! ;-)
take care
/Vlad
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx
|
| (...) 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 (...) (27 years ago, 23-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx
|
| (...) 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 (...) (27 years ago, 23-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
9 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
|
|
|
|
