|
|
 | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) No, this sort of thing isn't covered in my book. There are several ways to send commands to the RCX. The first is the official SDK from TLG (spirit.ocx) which runs under Windows. The SDK contains a reasonable amount of documentation on the (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) [Snip] (...) Okay. Is sending these commands (and which ones that are/can be "immediate") in your book? <G> While I don not have something in mind right this second, the more complex programs get the higher the possibility of someone using (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) I'm not sure if the terminology from LEGO is "direct" or "immediate" commands, but either way the idea is that some of the bytecodes can be sent to the RCX and the RCX will execute them immediately. There's a lot of overlap between the direct (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) I am kind of new to this, but what is meant by direct command? How would tasks downloaded in another slot be assessable to some other task to start up? --- DonC donc@cccd.edu (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | RE: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) This might be a good idea. The pbForth thing is working out well too. Maybe a C to FORTH translator would be useful. In the other hand, making a custom bytecode interpreter means having to write the interpreter and support it on different (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wish
|
| Inline functions are by their very nature surpressed. Also, most control structures and calculations that can be evaluated at compile time are eliminated. I thought about surpressing tasks and subs, but then decided not to. The problem is that tasks (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) To me, one of the important features of such a thing would be compatibility with the existing firmware. Otherwise, why not just use LegOS? (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| If anyone is seriously considering this I'd ask two things... 1) Have you considered porting the p-code interpreter used by Interactive C or something like a stripped down Java bytecode interpreter instead? The idea here would be that the RCX (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| (...) Yeah, this was discussed way back at the beginning of the reverse-engineering effort. It's something I'd like to see too. (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
| I was jut wondering, has anybody tried to implement a "better RCX-code"? It must be possible to write something very similar to RCX-code in LegOS, only faster and implementing the "missing" array structures and more variables. Mayby compatible with (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
