| |
-----Original Message-----
From: John Cooper [mailto:robots@jpsc.co.uk]
Sent: Monday, May 10, 1999 6:07 AM
To: Ralph Hempel
Subject: Re: New pbFORTH
> How do you feel about pbFORTH after the
> discussion so far on Java and a new bytecode interpreter?
I'm not really interested in Java, if I were going to go that sort of
route with a conventional programming language I would try LegOS. I am
happy to persevere with pbFORTH.
> Is it worth
> it for me to spend more time on documentation first, so that more
> people are willing to try it? Or should I get the code working so that
> you and I can get a cool mapping bot or maze path analyser working.
I wouldn't have thought that lack of documentation was keeping people
away, but probably the perception that it isn't mainstream, and that
there are only a few people involved and maybe there isn't a lot
happening (perheps we should be conducting these conversations through
the mailing list and not in private mail). I would think that publishing
a working robot code would help enormously.
> get it
> communicating at 4800 or higher.
Are you talking download speeds here? This is my biggest problem area -
with my hardware under NT I find that nqc.exe is the best way to get
pbFORTH bootstrapped into the RCX, but even that fails 4 times out of 5
(I have a script which times how long nqc -firmware pbforth.srec takes
and loops until it takes more than 2 minutes).
> Best regards, keep plugging away at the beast...
I will (see my other messages).
--
John Cooper, Wallington, UK
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
