 | | Re: OO programing in RCX
|
|
(...) I'm curious -- are you making it so you can think about your RCX program in OO terms, or just the VB program that sends opcodes? (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: (no longer Failed) Getting LegOS 0.2.2 working on Windows
|
|
Way to go Paolo! So the only thing that needs to be changed is replace my patch to loader.c with yours? I'll put that onto arthurdent. Glad that it's finally solved. Now, i'll try to get Martin's LNP stuff working on windows. Peter BTW A happy new (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: OO programing in RCX
|
|
Hi Eric, There always Visual Basic. I'm currently building a few ActiveX controls which sit on top of Spirit. So far its working nicely and is a big improvement over the non-class method of VB coding I used in my original prototype. David Leeper (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: OO programing in RCX
|
|
Hi Eric, there's a patch in the works to give legOS support for most of C++ - virtual functions and the lot. Markus. (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | OO programing in RCX
|
|
Hi folks, I am an OO guy. Is there any any OO programming tools in RCX. I know there are LegOS, NQC, and so on. I have been addictted to OO and Java for couple of years. Some guys are working in developing JVM for RCX. I am looking forward any good (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: RF Connection To RCX
|
|
(...) Yep! I am going to make the RF/IR adapter plug in front of the RCX. And make my RF tower to replace the IR tower. I know the IR carries on 38.5KHz. Does it mean both transmt/receive signals working in the same 38.5KHz? If so, how can I solve (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: New Mindstorms Club!
|
|
(...) [snip] Joshua, Why then start another club if there is already an active one on Yahoo? Since I am an active member of that club, I can catagorically state that we aren't snobbish about _any_ robot platform, there are many there that would (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | RE: pbFORTH needs better uploading, docs
|
|
Ben Jackson wrote.. (...) And Mark Terrabain replied... (...) I'm reluctant to take pbForth there because the RCX already compiles bytecodes and SAVE-SYSTEM sends them back to the host in Srecord format. Writing and testing a bytecode compiler for (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | RE: pbFORTH needs better uploading, docs
|
|
Ben, Thanks for emailing and feeding back some important issues for the rest of the Mindstorms pbForth community. I'll always welcome comments and respond as quickly as possible... Let me address each point, sorry about the quoting, but it's needed (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Re: (Failed) Getting LegOS 0.2.2 working on Windows
|
|
(...) everything (...) Yahooo, again! Yep, your patch worked like a charm! I also got the AV error message, but recompiling the demo files again seemed to fix the problem. Go figure. Thanks for the help! -Jeff (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: pbFORTH needs better uploading, docs
|
|
Well, I can rather agree on the uploading, but I don't find it quite as bad as you do. Not as good as NQC, but then NQC still has all the LEGO firmware limitations. As for the rest of your comments, I can only say that I managed to get the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | New Mindstorms Club!
|
|
Hello all! I'm new to the RCX and NQC, but am finding it very easy, due to my knowledge of JavaScript. I looked in Yahoo! Clubs, and only found one decent-sized club that was still alive. I've made a new Mindstorms club, named Mindstorms Emporium. I (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC beta test release policy
|
|
(...) goals. In the (...) is to allow it (...) personally support. (...) Ok, what I meant is that open source beta (and other) releases improve the quality of the overall product. I don't think nqc has a stability problem. (...) entire release on my (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: pbFORTH needs better uploading, docs
|
|
(...) This, IMO, is the biggest problem with pbForth as it exists. Although I have no idea why, Ralph seems reluctant to take pbForth to that point at this time. (And it makes even less sense to me when I think about the idea that most of this (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | pbFORTH needs better uploading, docs
|
|
So I've just been crawling over some broken glass, ERR, I mean, uploading pbFORTH text files to the RCX! It's hard to tell the difference! At the least, pbFORTH needs to: 1) accept \n, \r, \n\r or \r\n all as it does a single \r now. 2) have a mode (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC beta test release policy
|
|
I'm combining two replies in the thread into a single message... (...) I agree completely that philisophically a beta release of free software should also be free software. I have been cutting corners on this with NQC out of praticality. There is a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: RF Connection To RCX
|
|
(...) If you take an COTS rf module, such as those from Siemens or Montorolo, or for example the bluetooth sample module, (though I used one from a cheap radio shack wireless phone) you'll find that the di and do have very similar voltages and (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC beta test release policy
|
|
(...) Whew, I was beginning to sweat there. MacNQC is the only Macintosh based robotics microcontroller software out there (Except for PBForth, which I'm not sure but may need a PC to download it). All of my PIC, Scenix, AVR, 68HC11 and Parallax (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: RF Connection To RCX
|
|
Eric, this was the approach I was thinking of. This way all the 'regular' functions, software, RcxCC etc would continue to work. Limitations: Speed is the same.. Other approaches would require deep hacking, I believe. I envisioned two devices: 1. (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC beta test release policy
|
|
oops.. a slight cock-up on my part means that this message is delivered in installments, read this one as a continuation of the one it is in reply to:-) About the source release being "tied to the linux release": Considering the fact that the linux (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
