Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur
No. I believe you are missing the point of my post.
|
Your post had two points. I chose to answer only the first one. The second one seemed too speculative to address well.
Quote:
|
According to Bills blog, 43 teams were set up as beta testers (Sept 3), yet the OP states that only 7 teams have provided results.
|
Where did it say that? Andrew gave a summary of 20 minutes of browsing in one forum. I've seen contributions by many more teams than that.
Quote:
|
Most of which does not include specifics about the changes in FPGA code or how much editing it will take to convert their labview/C++ code to Java (Things that at least 20 of the beta teams have done).
|
Changes to the FPGA are out of scope for the teams. Nobody outside NI really knows the specifics. I don't know anything about Java for FRC beyond the fact that it's being supported, but asking about how much "editing" it will take to "convert" LabVIEW to Java suggests that you don't know enough about either for an answer to be useful. Teams didn't edit their old robot code to turn them into Java programs. They wrote new ones in Java.
Quote:
|
My suggestion in my previous post was not an indictment of the teams, but rather a suggestion that we look at open sourcing the libraries to all of the FIRST teams and see what comes of it.
|
The libraries were not the most important part of the Beta Test process.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "open source", though. Are you asking for WPI to make the libraries available for anyone to modify?
Quote:
|
My question back to you is: If there is nothing gained by having the software, then why are you so against opening up the beta process to all teams?
|
I didn't say I was against anything. I said that being part of the Beta Test isn't as advantageous to the participating teams as you believe.
If I did want to explain why limiting the process to relatively few participants is appropriate, I would give pretty much the same answer Richard did.