 | | Re: How advanced can RCX programming be?
|
|
"TM" == Tobias Möller <tobias.moller@telia.com> writes: TM> If I´ve understood this multi-tasking right, then it means that TM> you can have one program running for the motors of a robot, and TM> another for the sensors, but at the same time. It (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: How advanced can RCX programming be?
|
|
(...) That wasn't me! David Leeper (has been a computer programmer for 17 years! :^)) (26 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: OO programing in RCX
|
|
Hi Dave, On the RCX side, I wouldn't want true objects. I wouldn't want to fill up the RCX variables with vtables and the program memory with the code to use the vtables. But on the PC side of things I'm beginning to think objects can be very (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: How advanced can RCX programming be?
|
|
In lugnet.robotics.rcx, David Leeper writes: I´m no computer programmer, but I´ve downloaded NQC but haven´t installed it yet. If I´ve understood this multi-tasking right, then it means that you can have one program running for the motors of a (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: OO programing in RCX
|
|
(...) I toyed with a couple of ideas for this, but most of the really useful things can't be done using the standard bytecodes. About the only thing I came up with was a way to wrap the standard API calls up into some classes. However, implementing (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: How advanced can RCX programming be?
|
|
(...) IMHO, spirit.ocx doesn't provide OO capability - it does serve as an enabler, though. What it provides is the ability to write a VB program that writes an RCX program. This VB program can be as OO as you want it, but the calls to spirit.ocx (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: OO programing in RCX
|
|
What I mean is to think the RCX in OO. For example, I can add a sensor object in my programming code when I plug a sensor into my RCX. I can make the sensor object to interface with the RCX object in the OO manner. Is that possible? I learned some (...) (26 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: How advanced can RCX programming be?
|
|
(...) You are right, Matthew. It also supports the Mac and Unix, which RCX Code and the Spirit ActiveX control don't. David Leeper (26 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: How advanced can RCX programming be?
|
|
(...) Even if you don't know C, NQC is pretty easy to learn. (26 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: How advanced can RCX programming be?
|
|
Hi Tobias, If you're a computer programmer, I'd definitly suggest using something other than the RCX Code method of writing programs for the RCX. NQC is a nice environment if you know C. If you know a language that supports ActiveX, you can program (...) (26 years ago, 10-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics)
|
