I wander what cool new hardware features there will be. I hope there are more io ports such as some general purpose bidirectional ttl or cmos compatible pins and a real lcd.

Honestly, if they're telling you that one programming language is inherently better than another in totality, they're doing you and everyone else a disservice. A specific feature of a programming language may be better implemented or better supported than another, but saying it is completely better is just ignoring too many of the other features of the programming language.

Plus, I've met a good number of people with PhD's who really don't know what they're talking about. Or at least don't have as good an understanding as they should.

Matt

TOtally is not a word I used. There are a few cases where C++ may be a better language is some ways then some other languges. But few programmers will ever see the need to use them. Someone doing general applications will never see them. In some operating systems features perhaps. And maybe in low memory configuration embedded systems. But darn few of either of those as the VMs for Java and C# get better. In many cases you'd be better off going to assembly before C++.

But in general terms you can say that one language has more good features then another and/or that one language has more bad features then another. And clearly for general applications Java and C# are MUCH better languages then C++.

Of the 9-10 languages I've used professionally (and a bunch more for fun) C++ is in the lower middle of the ones I'd use again if I had the choice. Above DIBOL and below OOP COOBOL .NET.

Key word there is choice, just because you like it better does not automatically mean it's better. What type of programming have you done? I do 3D programming mostly and I find C++ works great for that. I am also learning how ot program Motorola MCUs, in C and a little assembler, I wouldn't dare use .NET for that. The better language can't just be picked.

He is right. But the simpilist point, that covers this whole off-topic stuff is "USE THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE JOB".

But Matt is right. C++ is recommended over a lot of langauges for 3D programming. You wouldn't use VB for it, because that would make it run to slow. I'm not sure if C# can do 3D. ASP can't handle 3D at all. Nor PHP. C might.

But still, read my sentence, and repeat that over and over (repeate the stuff inside the quotes that is) if you don't know what language to use for a project.

Heck, I'm using MFC for my editor (I was using the C++ Win32 API, but that was causing more confusion than anything). MFC is great for what I wanna do. But it isn't to good for making games.

A little bit of a lot of things. Some operating systems internals. There was a print/batch system where some of the work was done in Assembly language and some in BASIC (Basic-PLUS actually). I've done OS work for a couple of companies (the companies that created the hardware and OS) in a couple of assembly languages. I've done some high performance stuff using array processors which obviously was in FORTRAN. Some applications (accounting etc) that was done in languages like COBOL, DIBOL, versions of BASIC, etc. Test software for high performance systems in a bunch of languages.

Are you saying that no language is better then any other? They're all the same?

Neither of the two camps in this argument is going to convince the other that either one is right or wrong.

Don't get me wrong. I have an opinion, which I have, more or less, already expressed. I don't claim to be an objective observer. I just am all too familiar with arguments like this.

One suggestion: drop it.

So, about that new control system...

I've heard that teams will have the ability to use the same syntax as we've all been familiar with, for past years, in PBASIC. I assume this is a fall-back-plan for teams who can't cope with such a fundamental change, so quickly (possibly analogous to what some teams experienced with the introduction of an autonomous mode). What do you think the chances are that they (IFI) would use a product like a PICBasic compiler, rather than develop the translational software in-house?

I would assume fairly high. IFI doesn't have that many employees and a complete redesign of the control system would take up a lot of those employees. There is the possiblity of them contracting it out however.

I think there may be a more likely solution in that software written in PBasic may run in an emulation layer on top of another processor. If the processor was significantly powerful (and frankly, it's not hard to get a cheap powerful processor these days), it wouldn't be too difficult to do that.

Another possibility is to just have two different chips on the board (both a Basic Stamp and some other mystery chip) and it's user selectable as to which one is used.

Matt

Hmm. Thats a good point. It, however assumes a relatively powerful processor like a StrongArm Coldfire, etc. Most higher power processors must be either programmed in assemble or a compiler must be used. That would mean that FIRST would have to get a company such a MetroWerks donate the software. Microsoft and Metrowerks? not likley

On the other hand I think it is highy likley that they will use another Basic stamp like chip, such the Basic Atom, Basic X, etc. This would allow a great boost in power, with little syntax change.

While a real(ie: runs compiled code) processor would be nice, I think we will probably just see another Basic Stamp like chip. I hope im wrong though.

Not to mention interpreted code runs at a slower pace no matter how you slice it. There are also plenty of companies around that make compilers. The makers of the Basic Atom also makes compilers.

That they do. You must be referring to their MBasic compiler, which is meant to accept basic stamp code. Hmmm right back to Basic Stamps again.

I'm not quite sure what you're point with powerful processors must be programmed in assembly or a higher level language. To my knowledge, almost all processors must be programmed that way. It also wouldn't have to be a particularly powerful processor. Remember that the Basic Stamp merely interprets the compiled PBasic code and that runs on a PIC.

As far as having MetroWerks donating a compiler, I wouldn't see why not. They are owned by Motorola after all which is a big sponsor of FIRST.

That leads me to another point: I think there's a strong possibility that the new chip may be from Motorola. Motorola makes a lot of embedded chips and may be willing to give IFI a discount on them for use with FIRST. The chips are widely used and have a lot of support out there. There are also various C compilers for the processors. I think that may be a strong possibility.

Matt

please if motorola does wind up working with or without ifi on a new IO and/or RC please do not have it like another big, bulky, space wasting, White box like it has been in the past.
~Mike

It really has nothing to do with the language it has to do with how the language is read on the microcontroller.
interpretors-An interpretor reads a high level language and then tells the micro-controller what to do. It is almost exactly what a Basic stamp does. The slowest of the three choices due to the fact that the microcontroller has to read the high language.
Compilers- Compilers turn high level languages and turns it into assembly. They generally have to be designed for a specific brand of micro-controllers since each one usually has different hardware architectures. The second fastest due to the fact that the program is being translated into assembly.
Assembly- Lowest level language for any microcontroller and generally the hardest to understand. The fastest one if properly implemented.
Usually all that gets affected if you go from one type to the next is the speed of the program. It usually goes like this in order of increasing speed:
interpretors<compilers<assembly

I think it's java...anyone look up parallax's latest projects...the javalin stamp...the basic stamp...I don't think it would be too much work to replace pbasic with java by switching stamps from the same company. Likewise, I would think parallax would be pressuring IFI to be using the javalin stamp to promote sales and usage. The AP Compsci switched from C++ to Java. Will everyone taking AP Compsci right now not be familiar with java by the time it is released? In addition, Java is more practical than PBASIC pertaining to the real world. No one cares that someone programmed in PBASIC but atleast with java you earn some respect. Java is also cross-platform, I would think if they move to Java they would also support a cross-platform pbasic editor written in java..

I prefer C++, but I'd still want java over pbasic anyday.