Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypnotoad
A good programmer, or rather any engineer everl, solves a problem through the least effort possible. Transportation exists because someone somewhere decided to be lazy. machines, robots, every invention exists because of a lazy inventor. I am taking the lazy approach (which is still too complicated, I'll be thinking about how to make it even simpler tonight)
|
As an engineer, I take offense at that in a number of ways. To begin, what is the 'right' solution to a problem? Is the least expensive? The most robust? The most cost effective? Is a person designing the next mars lander going to weigh those options the same way a person would if they are designing a plastic spork?
Even our little microcosm of FIRST has different design goals based on the team you belong to. Are you designing just to get on the field, with limited resources and money? Are you designing to get to Einstein?
I've already spent close to 12 hours discussing the balance between automous and teleoperated game play. The mechanical needs of a great auton machine are NOT the mechanical needs of a machine that is great at playing this game in teleoperated. The person who manages to mesh those abilities will be ahead. As a programmer you should have a hand in making those mechanical decisions.
Your over-simplified statement is incorrect. If you believe the laziest answer is the correct one, then I applaud your confidence and will enjoy seeing you push balls into the bottom goal in autonomous.