Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronweiss74
I'm going to have to agree with all those who said that programming the drive system really isn't difficult at all. The most common systems are ready-made and quite frankly, there's absolutely no good reason other than elitist-ness to rewrite them. If you take programming in FIRST as an opportunity to prepare for programming in the real world, you'll have to realize that you get paid to produce new work, not rewrite already working code. As the old saying goes, don't fix what isn't broken. As for an actual answer, it has to be something complex to the point where you require advanced math...
|
Welcome to CD. Your enthusiasm and self-confidence are admirable, but as you get older and gain experience you will find that those absolute statements have many shades of gray.
A software problem need not involve advanced math to be complex. It may involve just algebra, geometry, and trig... but require considerable skill and experience to set the problem up properly.
In the real world, many software people get paid to rewrite already working code, be it to make it more efficient, make it more maintainable, make it more re-usable, make it conform to a new customer-required (or company-required) coding standard or language, take advantage of the unique characteristics of a new processor, avoid royalties, or migrate away from a legacy language.
Rewriting library code just to be "elitist" is immature and counterproductive. But assuming that learning is the motivation, at least one good reason to re-write library code is to learn. Some people learn best by doing. Understanding and analyzing an already-solved problem and designing and coding a working solution is one way to do this. Comparing your solution to someone else's can be rewarding and provide deeper insight. It goes without saying that this learning process should not be allowed to jeopardize the project.