View Single Post
  #88   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 07-12-2006, 19:10
Alexa Stott's Avatar
Alexa Stott Alexa Stott is offline
All I do is twin.
AKA: elixir
FRC #0025 (Raider Robotix)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Rookie Year: 2006
Location: No. Bruns., NJ/College Park, MD
Posts: 781
Alexa Stott has a reputation beyond reputeAlexa Stott has a reputation beyond reputeAlexa Stott has a reputation beyond reputeAlexa Stott has a reputation beyond reputeAlexa Stott has a reputation beyond reputeAlexa Stott has a reputation beyond reputeAlexa Stott has a reputation beyond reputeAlexa Stott has a reputation beyond reputeAlexa Stott has a reputation beyond reputeAlexa Stott has a reputation beyond reputeAlexa Stott has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Alexa Stott
Re: Ethics 101: To re-use or not to re-use?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trilogism
Hypothetically speaking:
If a team has used the same drive train 4 years in a row, and plans on using it again for a fifth year, but each year they build a new one (so they are using a design but not the pre-made structure), does the programmer still have to completely rewrite the drive code, even though it would most likely be nearly or completely identical to the code from the previous four years?
According to the current rule, you can't, because then some of the lines of code would be <gasp!> identical!

But you brought up a good point. According to some people in this thread, no line of code could be the same from year to year. Now, if that is what the rule is actually saying, that means the simplest things, such as pwm01 = 127; would be illegal. Also, as it has been stated before, this rule would make using Kevin Watson's default code illegal, since there are few changes from year to year.
__________________
|Email:alexastott[at]gmail.com|Facebook|@zelixir|Google+|
[University of Maryland Computer Science, Psychology]
[Brunswick Eruption]
Reply With Quote