Subject:
|
Re: Would-be hacker queries. / Re: Request for new list
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 May 1999 12:23:34 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
John A. Tamplin <JAT@LIVEONTHENETspamless.COM>
|
Viewed:
|
1233 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, 8 May 1999, stephen p spackman wrote:
> You see? Not everyone out there wants or needs a Java. With a properly
> designed language _not one_ of these concepts would need explaining -
> though most of them would fall out as "huh, that's obvious, you need a
> _word_ for that?" concepts.
I have never said that everyone wants or needs Java. I am quite
certain that no single platform of any type will please all of the people
all the time. As I have said repeatedly here, I think choosing Java
minimizes the total work required to get a new bytecode interpreter in
the RCX. Sure, the interpreter is more complex than would otherwise be
required, but then you have most of the design done for you and you have
all the development tools on all the platforms.
> Really, Java is much more complex - and less powerful - than it needs to
> be, just because of the market necessity to be like C++.
I guess it depends on how you define "needs to be". Java wasn't designed
from a merketing decision -- it was originally designed because James
Gosling wanted to put software in consumer devices and decided that
traditional languages didn't fit the bill. It was developed for this
purpose, and only after it was done did the marketing engine take over
and the hype about it being the future of all computing, etc.
> Why can we not be free of this? The impediment is not technical.
I am not sure exactly what it is you want to be free of. If you mean C++
syntax, go use Eiffel, Smalltalk, or Scheme. If you think you have a
better way of doing things, then by all means go do it and tell us when
you are done.
> stephen (who thinks a Java port to the RCX *would* be cool, but who just
> doesn't think it meets the brief of "something simpler and more powerful
> that everyone could enjoy using" - I mean, why not port Emacs lisp ;->)
Simpler for the end user -- you write a 10-line Java class that controls
your robot and download it. You don't have to worry about linking an OS,
you don't have to be constrained by ridiculous limitations like you were
programming in the early BASICs without arrays, etc. At the same time, if
you want to do something more complicated such as build robots which work
together over a network protocol or implement complicated behaviors, then
you can do that too.
I believe the end result will be something that someone can write code in
a very similar fashion to NQC and download that in a manner similar to
the standard firmware and get similar results. At the same time, you can
build a complicated application consisting of multiple classes and link
it together and download it to the same firmware and run it just as well.
I happen to think that would be worthwhile goal that people other than
myself would find useful. If you don't, then go build what you think
will be useful.
John A. Tamplin Traveller Information Services
jat@LiveOnTheNet.COM 2104 West Ferry Way
256/705-7007 - FAX 256/705-7100 Huntsville, AL 35801
--
Did you check the web site first?: http://www.crynwr.com/lego-robotics
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Would-be hacker queries. / Re: Request for new list
|
| (...) I'm going out of town and have to run for the bus ayt any moment, so I'm afraid I don't get to answer your questions. But a quick comment to those who are contemplating what the New Environment should be: You see? Not everyone out there wants (...) (25 years ago, 8-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
