|
Re: On the quality and complexity of software within FRC
Quote:
Originally Posted by connor.worley
Requiring teams to submit their code to the judges for review might fix this, but I don't know if the volunteer capacity exists.
|
I think this has a lot of potential as an optional submission, but require it to be considered for the Innovation in Control Award, like how a Business Plan submission is required for the Entrepreneurship Award.
This year, I had our team's programmers assemble a document including the code, with full comments, and some flowcharts and rationales. It helped them better understand their decision making process, realize its advantages and weaknesses, and identify ways to improve. It's also nice to have another deliverable for judges.
P.S. getting programmers to document their work can be difficult.
__________________
2016-present, Mentor, FRC 2791 - Shaker Robotics
2016: Tech Valley SF (5236, 2791, 3624) and Quality, Finger Lakes SF (5254, 2791, 2383), Battlecry@WPI Winner (195, 2791, 501), Robot Rumble Winner (2791, 195, 6463)
2016-present, Mentor, FRC 1257 - Parallel Universe
2016: Mount Olive Winner (1257, 5624, 1676), Bridgewater-Raritan Finalist (1257, 25, 3340, 555) and GP, MAR CMP Winner (225, 341, 1257), Archimedes SF (4003, 4564, 5842, 1257), IRI Invite
2012-2015, Student, FRC 1257 - Parallel Universe
2015: Mount Olive QF (1257, 1811, 1923) and Safety Award, North Brunswick Finalist (11, 193, 1257) and Team Spirit and Safety Awards
2014: Clifton Winner (1626, 869, 1257), MAR CMP QF (1257, 293, 303)
2013: TCNJ Safety Award
2012: Mount Olive QF (204, 303, 1257)
|