|
|
 | | Re: BricxCC release 3.3.7.6
|
| small suggestion: when you've a syntax error in NQC, it goes like this - error is reported - you correct the error - recompile the source - code is downloaded - error message disappears In my opinion, the last 2 actions should be the other way (...) (21 years ago, 11-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
| | | | | Re: NQC's future
|
| (...) Here's a suggestion/question: is it possible (either in the current incarnation or a future one) for NQC to use FastTimer() as a source for events? Timer() works, but not (it seems) FastTimer(). (21 years ago, 11-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics)
| | | | | Re: ...2 years later... :-) (was: newbie again part 2)
|
| Hello, for the benefit of the next guy reading this thread (probably in January 2006 :-) : Dave was right, the *.rcx file I was trying to feed to pbsim wasn't in the current directory. (I didn't notice that my Java environment, jEdit, had set the (...) (21 years ago, 10-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: ...2 years later... :-) (was: newbie again part 2)
|
| Hello, and thanks for the reply. In lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, Dave Baum wrote: . . . (...) That's where I thought it was, but who knows. I'll continue the quest. Thanks again -- as always I am impressed how easy it is on the Net to get to the roots (...) (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC's future
|
| (...) ;o) ... but why not ? (...) You're right, I should try pbForth, actually I intend to do that for a while but never jumped in. In the late 80's, I was involved in a point of sales terminal project that was programmed with a preemptive (...) (21 years ago, 9-Jan-04, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc, lugnet.robotics.spybotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
