|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
