 | | LNP + Java
|
|
Simple question, has anyone out there written, or begun writing an LNP interface object for java ? I'd like the development environment I'm writing to keep control of my little Genetic Program RCX to be less platform specific than linux or windows, (...) (24 years ago, 29-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: 0.2.4 API (Long)
|
|
I'll look at this and probably post it tomorrow (very, very long day, which you'd think would be surprising on a Saturday :| On first glance, it looks like a very useful document. Unfortunately, the autogenerated API docs have become more and more (...) (24 years ago, 29-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | 0.2.4 API (Long)
|
|
I put together a .html document that sums up the User Level functions (as opposed to the internal/Kernel housekeeping functions), Constants, and Macros. I forwarded it to Luis, maybe he'll put it up later on LegOS.Sourforge.net In the meantime, I (...) (24 years ago, 28-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: text location for apps and q?
|
|
(...) Ok, but why? Again, if you're just having fun, go for it, but don't expect it to be useful. Personally, the current interface is simple and highly functional, and a change to a file paradigm would just make it more complicated with no benefit. (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: text location for apps and q?
|
|
(...) But also for luis, it's not just about performance, it's about interface. of course there's always hack value, but it also might be useful. like many people would expect printf() or write() to stdout instead of cputs(). i don't think there's a (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: text location for apps and q?
|
|
(...) for the output device thing, the lcd isn't the only device. sensors and motors are also can be implemented as files. (...) well it's still just an idea, maybe the fork() will turn out as rfork(). doesn't really matter now. but see my other (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: text location for apps and q?
|
|
Yeah. I have to agree with Ross. Increased unix-ness would be nice, but additional complexity with no actual performance gain most definitely is not. That said, like the remote patch that I'll post sometime this weekend, I'll take patches for (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: text location for apps and q?
|
|
(...) Well, as someone else has said in this thread, if you're doing it for fun, or to learn more about memory management / file systems, etc, then got for it. But I wouldn't expect much of it to be included in the official versions - you've got to (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: text location for apps and q?
|
|
(...) You can't implement a true fork() anyway, since you don't have memory management and therefore can't copy the address space of the parent process. John A. Tamplin LiveOnTheNet.COM, Inc. jat@LiveOnTheNet.COM 2104 West Ferry Way 256/705-7007 - (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: text location for apps and q?
|
|
(...) I just have to ask why you're doing this, just for the heck of it? I mean, the output device you're writing two can hold a whopping five characters at a time. I don't really see the benefit of changing to a more complicated interface. Of (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
