|
|
 | | Re: ...2 years later... :-) (was: newbie again part 2)
|
| (...) It's been a long time since I looked at any of this, but I don't think the version of the NQC compiler is an issue, nor is the -1 option. The .rcx file format has been pretty stable for a long time. The -1 allows old source programs to be (...) (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | ...2 years later... :-) (was: newbie again part 2)
|
| Hello All, In lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, Dave Baum wrote (almost two years ago, Thu, 17 Jan 2002 00:34:56 GMT -- your words are cherished, Dave! :-): (...) [...] (...) Well, I am not (yet) a Java programmer, but try to become one, and would like to (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | RE: NQC's future
|
| (...) Ha Ha, very funny :-) Seriously, Philippe, why not give pbForth a try? I know that NQC works great on both the Spybots and the RCX, and even Cybermaster. But if you're looking for speed, higher precision, lots of variables and generally more (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | Re: NQC's future
|
| (...) Something I'd like to see implemented in NQC is a mixed-mode multiply/divide, similar to the */ operator in Forth, with an intermediary 32bits product. That would greatly ease precision calculations without requiring major structural (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
| | | | | Re: Happy new year!!!
|
| (...) Thanks Dave, it works now ! Stef Mientki (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
