 | | Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
(...) I was not intending to limit its functionality to that performed by the RCX with the standard firmware loaded. I did say "when no new features are being exploited". The idea of flashing an identifier associated with the current program may not (...) (27 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
(...) While I agree that it should be similar, I think it may need some minor modifications to make it truly useful. For example, I would like to be able to control the motors without having to load a program or use a host computer. It would be nice (...) (27 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
(...) In light of some of your points raised earlier and consideration since I first brought it up, I can see that bytecode level compatibility is not strictly required. By Look & Feel, I refer only to the observable behaviour of the RCX, not the (...) (27 years ago, 9-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
(...) What do you mean by end-user? Does keeping the end-user look and feel mean keeping the existing opcodes intact? You seemed to have mentioned this as a goal before but maintaining just the "look and feel" might no longer mean that. Also, you (...) (27 years ago, 8-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Some clarification
|
|
(...) I was not suggesting creating a potential for an L&F lawsuit from Lego by duplicating their Mindstorms product for Windows or some other PC platform, I was suggesting imitating the look & feel of their firmware on the RCX itself. (Not that I (...) (27 years ago, 8-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
