 | | Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
Forgive me while I think out load here. I'd like some feedback on some goals and ideas I've thought of for a new bytecode interpreter. Any critiques, comments, opinions, recommendations, or additions are welcome: I would hope that the new system (...) (26 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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-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 (...) (26 years ago, 8-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 (...) (26 years ago, 9-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 (...) (26 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
(...) Sure, but that's what zero padding is for. Since the opcode is IR-only, you don't care too much about length. The only length restriction comes from the second digit of the opcode, assuming you're using the ROM to receive incoming IR data. (...) (26 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
(...) You have 4 7-segment characters which could display a 4 character text string (albeit with some of the characters being different case and some confusion between characters). (...) Adding limited functions to check the memory usage without (...) (26 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Some goals, ideas, etc. for a new bytecode interpreter (long)
|
|
(...) Single-stepping through instructions would be a mode offered by the interpreter, and wouldn't require any breakpoints to be set. I suppose what the debugging information could contain is, instead of a list of valid breakpoints, a list of (...) (26 years ago, 10-May-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
