Subject:
|
Re: How advanced can RCX programming be?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Jan 2000 23:27:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
813 times
|
| |
|
|
From: "Luis Villa" <liv@duke.edu>
> I hate to see this about a toy I've had so much fun with, but it isn't
> likely that (esp. once you upgrade to pbForth or legOS) you'll feel
> limited by software, even with the 32K limitation. The big limitation is
> hardware. The sensors (esp. once you try to do anything with any kind of
> precision) are an unreliable mess, and the fact that you can only use
> three of them makes it difficult to do anything of any serious
> computational complexity.
This is 100% true. When I first bought my RCX I bought two of them figuring
that I'd use them in a master/slave configuration to do useful stuff with
more then three sensors. I haven't had much time in my life since then (got
married in august and have been busy at work since then), but this is still
my ultimate plan.
> Debugging is also practically impossible- the
> hoops my class has had to jump through to get sophisticated programs
> running are just unbelievable. That said, you can still do cool things-
> but they will take lots of patience, and lots of mechanical ingenuity.
Mechanical stuff is really what I play with Lego for. I write software for
a living and don't really feel the need to do more of that when I get home.
Does pbForth allow for interactive debugging of any sort over the terminal
session?
alex
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: How advanced can RCX programming be?
|
| (...) I hate to see this about a toy I've had so much fun with, but it isn't likely that (esp. once you upgrade to pbForth or legOS) you'll feel limited by software, even with the 32K limitation. The big limitation is hardware. The sensors (esp. (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
