I didn't know....I didn't think they did though, but it's sweet that they do.

Only thing about that is that what happens when your school (and city) is in debt? [darn this city of mine].

What the heck?

The .NET tools we get from Microsoft (through FIRST) have nothing to do with programming the robot, at all. Also, I'm willing to bet that Microsoft donates all of their software to FIRST, free of charge. Just like the tobacco and alcohol industries, Microsoft's best strategy is to "hook 'em when they're young," and for the most part, we're pretty young.

He's referring to the fact that Parallax is forcing us all to stay in the dark ages by using a closed (mileage / definitions may vary) tokenizer, which uses one of the most limited embeded system programming language in the world. If we had access to the Basic Stamp's assembly language level, there'd be a lot less of a problem, fundamentally, with using a Basic Stamp as the programming interface to the control system.

<rant type="irritable">
As a personal opinion, Parallax seems to be taking a typically Microsoft-esque approach to the marketing of their microcontroller series of products. They inflate the price of a low-quality product, and sell it to people who can't be bothered to learn about the intricasies of the system they're using.

Sure, it's really convenient for a hobbiest to be able to pick up a BS2 for less than $100, and be able to program it using a computer's serial port with a very rudimentary programming language. I will admit that there's a lot to say for "ease of use" features, but I can't see how they can possibly justify charging $50 for a hacked up bunch of components (the BS1 and BS2 use a PIC16C57, which you can get for around $3, and the BS2sx uses a Scenix SX28AC, which you can order from Digikey for less than $5). When you pay them $50 (for one of their "lower-end" microcontrollers, as the BS2p24 and p40 go for $80 and $100, respectively), you're paying for two things, basically: 1) $10, maybe $15 worth of actual electronic components, and B) anywhere from $35 to $90 for the privelige to use PBASIC (barf). They might have put enough programming labor into making the best tokenizer in the known universe, but that doesn't really impress me.

At least Microsoft doesn't go out of their way to try to convince you that they built your entire computer from scratch...
</rant>

Sorry about that. I'm irritated.

If what I've heard is correct, we won't have to deal with Parallax anymore, after this year....

And after that post, someone corrected me, and I said Ok.

the tokenizer.dll is very horid, but it also gets the job done when needed....look at rbbayer's programs. Some use the tokenizer.dll (atleast 1 of them).

GOOD! How about some cheap little 386s instead?

Microprocessors need compilers to generate machine language binaries from source, per architecture (the x86 standard is a good example of an architecture, as there are many manufacturers of CPUs which all are (more or less) compatible, binary-wise). The same goes for microcontrollers. The Scenix microcontroller mentioned in my previous post has a free C compiler that you can download from the internet. Microchip provides MPLAB and MPASM as an umbrella C / ASM IDE and an assembler, respectively. There's a program named IC-PROG which provides assembling functions for many different microcontrollers / microprocessors.

Google is very useful, with regard to much of what I just said.

I am familiar with the functionality of the Parallax tokenizer, and I would like to take a bit of time to personally thank Rob Bayer, and everyone who has contributed to his software (I'm thinking Joe Ross, but I'm not absolutely certain) for all of their hard work.

Me to...I am not saying I dispise them, I am not saying I don't like their work (well, Rob's anyways...I never seen much of anyone else's). I give them all the credit for what they've done to the FIRST community period.

Man I give anyone kudos who understands this stuff. Basic itself I can understand fairly well but past that my jaw just drops because of all those numbers. Thanks Fotoplasma that clarrified it for me. This forum also help me a lot. If I ever have a question about something there is usually something on it here. Now on to learn C then C++ then C+++.

C+++ isn't out yet.....but by the time FIRST ends, it probably will ;)

[If it is, then please show me....because I'd like to learn it. And I'M NOT FLAMING FIRST.......just so that no one jumps on me again]

Hehe! You're very welcome! And by the way, I'm pretty sure it'd be "(C++)++", or something like that. Definitely not C#, though. :p

What about C<<2?

According to the guys who designed C# it is intended to be (C++)++. Picture two plus signs on top of two plus signs.

Honestly, I can see how this can be. Isn't it true though that it is not a very good language (don't take me for that statement, I just read it.)?

Do you mean C++ or C#? C++ is not a very good language. C# is an outstanding language. How good is C#? It is so good that a bunch of Microsoft hating, Linux loving developers are creating an open source compiler for C#. C# is so good that the Java people are borrowing features from C# for a future version of Java. C# is probably the best language I know of. Of course I've only programmed professionally in about 10 languages and played with a few more.

You cannot directly compare any language like that, it depends on the situation and you cannot outright say one is horrible and the other is fantastic. For example FORTRAN will blow away most languages in math crunching, even C#. But C++ can devastate VB in efficency when used properly. It's not as simple as one is good and one is bad.