advanced programming solutions

[clynch]

Interesting discussions (here and ni week keynote presenter) recently regarding advanced programming of NXT. Too bad LabVIEW is not perceived as a serious contender.

[Michael Aivaliotis]

I also mentioned this on my blog post.

[Tomi Maila]

Perhaps NI didn't pay much enough

Tomi

[Aristos Queue]

QUOTE(clynch @ Nov 14 2007, 09:32 PM)

Interesting discussions (here and ni week keynote presenter) recently regarding advanced programming of NXT. Too bad LabVIEW is not perceived as a serious contender.

Any opinions the author has were pretty much discredited in my book by this statement:

(Aside: as I was re-teaching myself how to program in C, I was reminded about the funny logic of computers. -100 is > than -90. Is this true in all languages?)

What the...?! No, negative 100 is not greater than negative 90 in C.

[Mellroth]

QUOTE(Aristos Queue @ Nov 15 2007, 01:43 PM)

What the...?! No, negative 100 is not greater than negative 90 in C.

Maybe in MS Windows

/J

[Ton Plomp]

QUOTE(Aristos Queue @ Nov 15 2007, 01:43 PM)

Any opinions the author has were pretty much discredited in my book by this statement:

(Aside: as I was re-teaching myself how to program in C, I was reminded about the funny logic of computers. -100 is > than -90. Is this true in all languages?)

What the...?! No, negative 100 is not greater than negative 90 in C.

The discussion revealed that the compiler of NXT took a vector approach in this case and the radius of -100 is > -90.

The numbers describe motor speed and the sign is the direction of the movement.

Ton

[clynch]

QUOTE(Aristos Queue @ Nov 15 2007, 04:43 AM)

Any opinions the author has were pretty much discredited in my book by this statement:

(Aside: as I was re-teaching myself how to program in C, I was reminded about the funny logic of computers. -100 is > than -90. Is this true in all languages?)

What the...?! No, negative 100 is not greater than negative 90 in C.

I think discrediting his opinions based on that statement is a mistake. Both articles I referenced communicate what I've observered in the NXT world many times, once you move into discussions about advanced programming of the NXT, LabVIEW rarely even enters the discussion.

If the kids using NXT-G today get transitioned into using something like RobotC for more advanced programming tasks, it will be a shame. And right now, I think that is quite likely.

QUOTE(Michael_Aivaliotis @ Nov 14 2007, 08:32 PM)

I also mentioned this on

my blog post

.

Which I've belatedly added to my RSS reader, based on its most awesome content! :thumbup:

[Val Brown]

Of course it is the completely uninformed and rather parochial OPINION of that author that relegates LV to the "backburner".

[Justin Goeres]

I'm going to play a bit of devil's advocate on this one. I read the geek dad posting via the link from Michael's blog, but I didn't exactly get the impression that Chris Anderson "hates" graphical programming.

Here's sort of the relevant part to me:

QUOTE

"if...then...else", "while", even "for...next" -- you won't know how much you actually like those constructs until you don't have them. For anyone who's ever programmed, there's nothing better for understanding programming logic than properly tabbed and commented code, all in a column of text as God intended. And for your kids, there's no time like the present to introduce real programming, using coding conventions that will be as relevant in the decades to come as they were in decades past.

The only statement I truly take issue with there is where he says "there's nothing better for understanding programming logic than properly tabbed and commented code, all in a column of text as God intended." While I find that statement both laughably inaccurate and dripping with bias, it sounds to me like he's not specifically dissing graphical programming in general, but rather lamenting the limitations of NXT-G.

It's disappointing, though, that his solution to the problem was to run back to the warm, calming embrace of his beloved plaintext source files . As everyone in the choir here knows, that's throwing the baby (graphical programming) out with the bathwater (missing flow structures in NXT-G). I would've told him to just buy the LabVIEW Student Edition and gaze in awe as all his problems melted away.

[clynch]

QUOTE(Val Brown @ Nov 15 2007, 09:06 AM)

Of course it is the completely uninformed and rather parochial OPINION of that author that relegates LV to the "backburner".

Yes it is his opinion, but it shared by many in the NXT world. Look at the other link I listed, same message, different delivery.

QUOTE(Justin Goeres @ Nov 15 2007, 09:50 AM)

[snip]...I didn't exactly get the impression that Chris Anderson "hates" graphical programming....[snip]

I agree.

I thought NXT-G would naturally lead the NXT community towards LabVIEW. I don't think that so much anymore. Time will tell.

[Val Brown]

QUOTE(clynch @ Nov 15 2007, 12:45 PM)

Yes it is his opinion, but it shared by many in the NXT world. Look at the other http://www.botmag.com/articles/10-31-07_NXT.shtml' target="_blank">link I listed, same message, different delivery.

I agree.

I thought NXT-G would naturally lead the NXT community towards LabVIEW. I don't think that so much anymore. Time will tell.

Unfortunately bias and prejudice usually "points the way" instead of information. After all, if that weren't the case, we'd all be using Dworak keyboards instead of QWERTY.