Subject:
|
Re: "Non-Robolab" LabView functions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab
|
Date:
|
Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:35:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
10296 times
|
| |
|
|
> > As to LabVIEW behind ROBOLAB, you must be aware that ROBOLAB is in fact a
> > "code-generator" creating LASM-code from icons. This is comparable to RIS, but
> > much more efficient. The power of this graphical tool is that kids and
> > youngsters easily may program the RCX without dealing with text-programming
> > orthography. Of course the icons must be used correctly -also a kind of grammar-
> > but much easier to understand and to use.
>
> I disagree that it's easier to understand and use. Possibly easier to learn or
> figure out without documentation, up to a point. But ease of learning is not
> the same as ease of use.
>
> Graphical tools may be helpful for interface design for a program to be run in a
> graphical environment, but they are a poor choice for other aspects of
> programming.
Disagree. It's a matter of habitudes. Once you're familiar with the whole
environment, you may write extremely complex programs without getting lost. For
example, in our recent "Mars-mission" telerobotics project the complete
programming -the TCP/IP server included- has been written(drawn) in Labview
without any problem. If we'd done this in Java or C, we'd had plenty of
problems. To note, that we started with Java and had almost finished, when real
complicated problems could not be fixed with Java, but with Labview. Sounds
nice, he.... But I don't want to play the missionary here. That's not the point.
You are fan of your preferred language. That's like having a car: Oh, Mercedes
is a better car... Depends on what you want to do with.
> > Another advantage is the completeness
> > of ROBOLAB in programming, evaluating, debugging, publishing. This makes it the
> > best didactical tool for Mindstorms in schools. (Note also that LabVIEW runs on
> > all platforms.)
>
> LabView is a well-written and powerful tool, though I wish it didn't extend the
> graphical programming paradigm beyond the "front panel". Fortunately, though,
> it does at least offer some opportunity to specify some text-based constructs.
Did you see Labview7. That's incredible.
> It's just an entirely inappropriate base for an RCX programming system. The RCX
Disagree!!! We use to program our micro-controllers with a ROBOLAB-like program,
with great success. We tried the experiment. We compared the programming speed
with C++ and our graphical tool for some tests. The graphical won the race.
> is a non-graphical device with very limited I/O, so even the value of graphical
> programming for screen interface is gone. "Wiring" together program statements
> just becomes so much spaghetti!
You can program spaghetti everywhere.
> > If you try to use LabVIEW-functions like the triangular decrement icon, you must
> > understand that these functions applie to the PC-programm, e.a. the
> > code-generation process. So the decrement icon will act on the way, the
> > container-icon is understood by ROBOLAB, not on the container-value itself while
> > the RCX-program will be executed later.
>
> Sounds like a C preprocessor. So, only use them for constants?
>
> > This sounds a bit confusing. Perhaps you
> > should try to find more tutorial information on the Web about LabVIEW in
> > general.
>
> I looked at everything available before asking. The LabView manual is
> comprehensive but doesn't have anything to do with the RCX. The Robolab
> "manual" is very limited and vaguely worded.
>
> > In any case LabVIEW is one of the most sophisticated
> > programming-environments, especially the new version LabVIEW 7 Express. If you
> > start playing around with it, you'll discover tremendous possibilities in
> > RCX-programming. Note that ROBOLAB (2.5) is based on a student's edition of
> > LabVIEW 6.
>
> LabView is good for what it was written for: simulating and controlling lab
> instruments.
and far beyond.
....last post to that subject.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "Non-Robolab" LabView functions
|
| (...) Still waiting to hear from Dick about that. (...) I disagree that it's easier to understand and use. Possibly easier to learn or figure out without documentation, up to a point. But ease of learning is not the same as ease of use. Graphical (...) (21 years ago, 30-Nov-03, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
