|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
PBASIC sucks
y is parallax stil using PBASIC
primitive lower life form ? switch to C++, Java, VB i h8 labels |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Also, think about what you are saying, in order for a language to run on a chip, it has to be compiled down to machine code. Languages such as VB and java require an interpreter to run, and, without a lot of effort cannot be compiled to machine code. Lets try to keep the posts mainly positive. Thanks Tom Schindler |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Word to Tom Schindler.
If you're so against PBASIC, I'd like to see you write all of your robot code in PIC assembly... PBASIC may be unnecessarilly uncool, but I don't think it's really supposed to be easy. If it were easy, everyone would do it. The way I see it, PBASIC's faults are just another design challenge. We can't use certain things/materials/mechanisms on the robot, physically, for no other reason but to challenge us to do more with less, I believe. The same goes for the price limit, limits on the use/amount of pneumatics, etc. I'm not too coherent right now, but I think I'm making myself clear. We've all had our little frustrating times with PBASIC, but I think it's a good thing... |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Get a grip...
please tell me you arent one of those ppl who thinks we should put Linux, C++, or some other overkilll programming language on the RC. Pbasic is the easiest and best solution for FIRST, you dont need a degree in comp Sci or have to be an "l33t HaX0r" to use. and i agree completly in Fotoplasma, the language is yet another design complexity.. it may be frustrating but it's another challenge. lol, you think Pbasic is bad.. you should see the language they use for actual industrial control.. it makes the lego Mindstorm language look like Assembly *shudder* if you have a better solution then make your own RC ~Pyro |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: PBASIC sucks (but why, it is just another programming language!)
Quote:
maDGag, What exactly is your point.....it's just another programming language. Are you complaining about the limits of the language....well, have you ever thought about the resources available on a tiny pic micro-controller? What, do you expect virtual memory? Is it too "difficult" to deal with? Well, that's the way life is right? We have to get through it with what we have available to us......Engineering solutions to problems is no different. The limits of the STAMP only require you to be more intelligent about your approach. It makes you think....which is a great big part of what FIRST is all about anyways....right? -Quentin |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
go download the newest version, then you dont have to worry about labels
|
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Well, Parallax did release a java based interpretor (javelin or something) but it's not for the RC we have.
But yeah, "well, have you ever thought about the resources available on a tiny pic micro-controller? " The Robot Controller from last year has a PBASIC 133MHZ processor which is, sadly enough, faster than one of my computers which run's Linux (Redhat 8) with X. The new RC for this year might have a processor that's even faster (PBASIC 2.5 vs 2.0). |
|
#8
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
I could have sworn I read 133MHZ in the Control Systems Manual or something. Oh well, if it's 50mhz then it runs at the same speed as that linux computer.
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Basic Stamp 2sx (the BS in the RC) is officially clocked at 50MHz.
There're two other processors in the RC, (PICs, if I recall correctly) so there might be some confusion about total processing power, or whatever. |
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
I can't seem to find the schematics. I had a sheet with all the information about the three processors in the RC and the basic packets/communication messages.
|
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This is exactly why it makes no sense when people compare a 2GHz Pentium to a 1GHz Macintosh and claim that the Mac is slower. It's apples and oranges. Also the change from PBASIC 2.0 to 2.5 has nothing to do with the processor. You should be able to use new 2.5 code with an old robot controller, because the tokenizer converts it all down to the same machine instructions anyway. BTW, it's been a while since I looked at it, but I believe the other 2 processors in the RC are PIC16c74s. |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Im fine w/Pbasic but i do think vit would be cool to at least give the Javelin Stamp a try.
|
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
The last I heard from FIRST (this was from Eric about a year and a half ago) was that they were looking at using some other programming language besides PBasic. However, they wanted to make sure that there would always be the option of using PBasic. I don't know what's come of it since then.
Matt |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
I reallt do hope they do persue something else. Its a big change going from mainly C++ Java and PHP to Pbasic.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Obscure PBASIC for RoboEmu | rbayer | Programming | 1 | 28-03-2003 23:57 |
| PBasic 2.5 vs. 2.0 | Anthony Kesich | Programming | 6 | 09-02-2003 22:06 |
| RoboEmu v.1a (another PBASIC emulator) | rbayer | Programming | 0 | 07-07-2002 00:45 |
| emulationFIRST (aka PBasic emulator) | Matt Leese | Programming | 5 | 30-06-2002 12:06 |
| Another PBASIC Question | Ian W. | Programming | 4 | 31-01-2002 21:36 |