should there be a award for programming skill?

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

So please, again, tell me what award is programming specific?

My point is, and always has been, that a "programming specific" award is neither necessary nor obviously desireable. I do agree that programming discipline is important. I still don't see that as a reason to give it special attention in the manner of the other robot-centric awards.

Explicitly rewarding programming skill seems to be along the same lines as explicitly rewarding machining skill or drafting skill or welding skill or crimping skill or drilling skill. While each is important in its own way, none is especially relevant to the "big picture" goals of FIRST, and none really deserve special recognition on a program level.

That said, if you want to lobby Larry and Sergey to create a "Google Good Programming Practice Award", I don't think anyone will try to stop you. I wouldn't be upset if it came into existence, and I'd even take such an award into account when mentoring the students in our team's software group. (But I wouldn't be surprised to find the same teams winning it year after year due to a combination of professional programming mentors and long-established team software infrastructure.)

[Molten]

I'm not a programmer. In fact, I hate programming. It is tedious, time-consuming, and overall a pain. But that is why those that put up with it should have an award. On that note, why not have an award over the rules. Have an extensive test and the highest score wins. This would promote knowledge of the rules. Just saying, that yes there should be an award. But there are so many awards, somebody must coordinate them. There will be one one of these days.

[cdennisxlx2]

Originally Posted by EricH

Without the hardware, the code is useless. Tell me, programmers, could you do as well if you didn't have the pots, input devices, encoders, ultrasonics, HUDs, and other cool gadgets and only had timers? I doubt it! How many teams have had a seeming code failure, only to discover a bad [insert sensor here]?

And the hardware needs code to work right. Sure, it's good for producing smoke, or baffling the freshmen, or giving practice in some electronics stuff, without it, but I'm sure that that isn't what teams want.

So the hardware is integral to the software's success. Innovation in Control is therefore rewarding both parts; the hardware that allows the code to work right and the software (code) that makes sure the hardware does what it is supposed to. As such, it is not pure programming; nor is it pure hardware. It celebrates the mixture of the two.

I cant tell you how many times me and my students have been rushed on a code, every year our main teacher would complain that the autonomous code wasn't done and every single time we would say do you have a rolling chassis and manipulator done yet? Now we weren't just a software group we also did the electronics/pneumatics/web design/media and were key in the robot design, so anything we did [excluding web design and media] we had to wait for the main hardware to get finished or at least to a point where the chassis/drive train group said that we could start doing our job. Building a robot and making it work is about the unity of hardware and software not just about the individual side therefore there should not be a programming award unless your willing to make a hardware award.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

(But I wouldn't be surprised to find the same teams winning it year after year due to a combination of professional programming mentors and long-established team software infrastructure.)

i think this is exactly the problem, a lot of teams who don't have professional programming mentors would basically be out of luck, it would be like a team who does nothing in the community due to either lack of help or lack of interest trying to win chairmans. Back when i was a student on my team [wow 4 years ago] it was the teams rookie year, i was the head programmer [i was the only programmer] i had to learn it all my self with no help what so ever. there are teams [including some rookie teams] who have professionals who teach their students and honestly i don't think professional coding should be awarded. If it was then i want professional pneumatics, electronics, and machining awards.

Originally Posted by Molten

But that is why those that put up with it should have an award.

really to me [being a programmer] i wouldn't want an award on my programming as its not just my programming that makes the robot work

wow that got long fast....

[Adam Y.]

Originally Posted by cdennisxlx2

i disagree, i have done extensive teaching for programming and web design to a team for 3 years and there is plenty of time to teach the correct succession of steps. As to the comment about being FIRST not college, FIRST is a pre-engineering program, a lot of the students who go through FIRST become engineers.

Your talking to someone who is on his way to becoming an engineer. The reality is that what you are talking about can't happen easily. The reason why I brought this up is because I see this issue we are talking about as one of areas where you really can't condense it down to something simplistic. I would make a guess that most programmers for FIRST robots are actually employing two distinctly different fields that at one point had nothing to do with each other until computers became cost effective. Those being programing and control theory.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Your talking to someone who is on his way to becoming an engineer.

A teacher might have more experience in teaching others needed skills. As I recall, Raul's signature here says something to the effect of: "Warning: This reply is only an approximation of what I meant to convey, as engineers cannot possibly use the written work to communicate." Just because you can't do it doesn't mean someone else can't.

The hardest part, either way, is getting the students to retain the knowledge and use it at the right time. It doesn't matter which field you're in.

[dtengineering]

Originally Posted by Molten

I'm not a programmer. In fact, I hate programming. It is tedious, time-consuming, and overall a pain. But that is why those that put up with it should have an award.

Perspective is everything, isn't it? I kind of like programming... it is fun mental exercise. But I don't like polishing aluminum. I find that tedious, time-consuming and overall a pain... but I'd hardly suggest that polishing aluminum worthy of an award on its own as a result! Rather the students who enjoy polishing the robot's shiny bits do it because it is part of an overall effort to make the team and machine the best that they can be.

While there is nothing inherently evil about a programming award, just as there is nothing inherently evil about a welding award... or even a polishing award... I would prefer to see awards that require more of an overall team effort.

Jason

[cdennisxlx2]

Originally Posted by EricH

The hardest part, either way, is getting the students to retain the knowledge and use it at the right time. It doesn't matter which field you're in.

This is defiantly the challenge, whether or not you have 6 weeks or 6 years to instruct them it will only matter in crunch time.

Originally Posted by dtengineering

Perspective is everything, isn't it? I kind of like programming... it is fun mental exercise. But I don't like polishing aluminum. I find that tedious, time-consuming and overall a pain... but I'd hardly suggest that polishing aluminum worthy of an award on its own as a result! Rather the students who enjoy polishing the robot's shiny bits do it because it is part of an overall effort to make the team and machine the best that they can be.

While there is nothing inherently evil about a programming award, just as there is nothing inherently evil about a welding award... or even a polishing award... I would prefer to see awards that require more of an overall team effort.

Jason

i agree, it seems to me the biggest argument here is not about an award. I don't think anyone is going to reject such an award if it was created. Instead whether or not the programming is something that should be singled out in the over all process.

[Adam Y.]

Originally Posted by EricH

As I recall, Raul's signature here says something to the effect of: "Warning: This reply is only an approximation of what I meant to convey, as engineers cannot possibly use the written work to communicate." Just because you can't do it doesn't mean someone else can't.

Yeah that isn't the problem. I can convey the facts rather simplistically to the point where anyone can understand what I'm trying to say. The problem is that without a solid background in math more advance than the high school level it becomes a matter of complete and utter confusion. So much so that an electrical engineer came up with the math first and then proceeded to ignore the mathematicians that pointed out that his math had no valid proof. The math involved converts a complex differential equation into an algebra equation. You can do it without the math but then you start going into the realm of never going to happen in a professional environment which is what my original point was.

Instead whether or not the programming is something that should be singled out in the over all process.

That is the point. If it weren't for the fact that I've seen things that were programmed correctly but still managed to operate incorrectly invalidates the whole singular aspect programming being the most essential thing. Though I find it really odd that there isn't a single control systems engineer that hasn't peeked in on this discussion. Is there anyone here that does this for a living as opposed to myself who probably wants to be doing this for a living?

[drewjones13]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Yeah that isn't the problem. I can convey the facts rather simplistically to the point where anyone can understand what I'm trying to say. The problem is that without a solid background in math more advance than the high school level it becomes a matter of complete and utter confusion. So much so that an electrical engineer came up with the math first and then proceeded to ignore the mathematicians that pointed out that his math had no valid proof. The math involved converts a complex differential equation into an algebra equation. You can do it without the math but then you start going into the realm of never going to happen in a professional environment which is what my original point was.

That is the point. If it weren't for the fact that I've seen things that were programmed correctly but still managed to operate incorrectly invalidates the whole singular aspect programming being the most essential thing. Though I find it really odd that there isn't a single control systems engineer that hasn't peeked in on this discussion. Is there anyone here that does this for a living as opposed to myself who probably wants to be doing this for a living?

I am a just out of high school and into college student. I have been in first for 3 years going on 4. When I was in a FIRST team, I was able to perform mathematics at all levels required to do any programming and engineering tasks needed for any situation. My backgrounds in mathematics, physics, and engineering are at the high school level with AP Calculus, AP Physics, and Drafting as well as other engineering classes. I believe that high school students can perform this kind of mathematics and convey it clearly. I was also able to convey all that I needed to say about situations without extra effort. Many of the control theories can be performed without needed in the differential equations. I find it hard to understand that this is supposedly impossible for high school students to do this properly when in FIRST the students are the ones who design and create these systems. Which that proves my point of students having enough background in mathematics to produce profession quality by utilizing out of the box methods of interface with newer technology such as Wii-motes, glove interfaces and popular controllers like the Xbox 360 controllers.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by drewjones13

I am a just out of high school and into college student. I have been in first for 3 years going on 4. When I was in a FIRST team, I was able to perform mathematics at all levels required to do any programming and engineering tasks needed for any situation. My backgrounds in mathematics, physics, and engineering are at the high school level with AP Calculus, AP Physics, and Drafting as well as other engineering classes. I believe that high school students can perform this kind of mathematics and convey it clearly. I was also able to convey all that I needed to say about situations without extra effort. Many of the control theories can be performed without needed in the differential equations. I find it hard to understand that this is supposedly impossible for high school students to do this properly when in FIRST the students are the ones who design and create these systems. Which that proves my point of students having enough background in mathematics to produce profession quality by utilizing out of the box methods of interface with newer technology such as Wii-motes, glove interfaces and popular controllers like the Xbox 360 controllers.

Most of these solutions (I can only speak for the ones I have seen, as I have not seen the guts of every project out there) are either copies or hacks. While I'm sure the students grasped how their (most likely linear) equations operated, the concepts behind them were most likely skimmed over, if used at all. It really takes a college U-Grad level or above mathematics education to develop any kind of sustainable piece of software, especially in a field like control systems that deals with such a great amount of signal processing.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by drewjones13

I am a just out of high school and into college student. I have been in first for 3 years going on 4. When I was in a FIRST team, I was able to perform mathematics at all levels required to do any programming and engineering tasks needed for any situation. My backgrounds in mathematics, physics, and engineering are at the high school level with AP Calculus, AP Physics, and Drafting as well as other engineering classes. I believe that high school students can perform this kind of mathematics and convey it clearly. I was also able to convey all that I needed to say about situations without extra effort. Many of the control theories can be performed without needed in the differential equations. I find it hard to understand that this is supposedly impossible for high school students to do this properly when in FIRST the students are the ones who design and create these systems. Which that proves my point of students having enough background in mathematics to produce profession quality by utilizing out of the box methods of interface with newer technology such as Wii-motes, glove interfaces and popular controllers like the Xbox 360 controllers.

While you may have had access to all of these resources some schools do not offer AP Calc, Ap Physics, or even drafting. So while it is nice that you had those resources available to you but you assume everyone has those same resources. I would LOVE to be able to trust the school to teach our students how to do most of the stuff, it would allow me to teach them the more important things about efficiency and elegance in code and mechanics. But instead I have to spend most of my time teaching students what a program is and the syntax.

Your basic assumption that everyone has the same resources you did is not correct, some of the teams out there scrape by for everything and some of the educational systems, particularly in inner city schools need FRC because otherwise those students would have NO exposure to any engineering education.

[Adam Y.]

Originally Posted by drewjones13

Which that proves my point of students having enough background in mathematics to produce profession quality by utilizing out of the box methods of interface with newer technology such as Wii-motes, glove interfaces and popular controllers like the Xbox 360 controllers.

When I'm referring to a control system I'm not actually referring to the controls. It's one of the engineering doublespeek terms that I've come to hate. I'm referring to the mathematical equation inside the controller that dictates the response of the plant/system/arm/doodad in reference to a desired input and the error.

[Phil Mack]

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

engineering doublespeek

In an embedded system, the microprocessor is called the "controller" because it is in fact controlling everything. The joysticks et cetera are more aptly called "human interface devices" because they provide a channel for humans to interact with the system.

~Phil

[ComradeNikolai]

Originally Posted by Damien1247

While you may have had access to all of these resources some schools do not offer AP Calc, Ap Physics, or even drafting. So while it is nice that you had those resources available to you but you assume everyone has those same resources. [cut]

Your basic assumption that everyone has the same resources you did is not correct, some of the teams out there scrape by for everything and some of the educational systems, particularly in inner city schools need FRC because otherwise those students would have NO exposure to any engineering education.

I come from one of the most competitive public schools in my state (one of the only 8 public schools to have an "excellent" rating for its entire existence (and that of the rating system), and one of only 24 for last year), but since we are relatively small (1050 students last year), we have AP English 11, 12, AP AB and BC Calculus, AP Art, and AP Biology; no other AP classes are offered, and the AP Calculus classes are on a track such that you can only take them as a senior. In addition, we have Programming 1 and 2, but they're in C# which doesn't adequately prepare the students for FIRST. It's a shame, really, that we don't have a better program than this for being "competitive," so I'd be sad to see other schools... but I hope we're the exception to the rule.

[swaknight]

I am a just out of high school and into college student. I have been in first for 3 years going on 4. When I was in a FIRST team, I was able to perform mathematics at all levels required to do any programming and engineering tasks needed for any situation. My backgrounds in mathematics, physics, and engineering are at the high school level with AP Calculus, AP Physics, and Drafting as well as other engineering classes. I believe that high school students can perform this kind of mathematics and convey it clearly. I was also able to convey all that I needed to say about situations without extra effort. Many of the control theories can be performed without needed in the differential equations. I find it hard to understand that this is supposedly impossible for high school students to do this properly when in FIRST the students are the ones who design and create these systems. Which that proves my point of students having enough background in mathematics to produce profession quality by utilizing out of the box methods of interface with newer technology such as Wii-motes, glove interfaces and popular controllers like the Xbox 360 controllers.

I realize that some schools offer all of these classes that you speak of, but thats just it, some do not all. Case in point, my school, for almost 50 years it has been recognized as the best in the city's district, it has turned out many very successful and famous people clear across the board. Keeping all this in mind, the only AP class offered in the school itself is AP Lit. the highest level math class offered this year is Pre-Calc. The only class in relation to engineering is Physics. We have no draft class, no mechanics class, no programming class, no CAD.

My point is, you can't take your high school experience and set that as being the standard clear across the country. I can confidently say that all of our teams members come in missing some piece of vital knowledge needed in the field of engineering or programming, but they leave with the knowledge they lacked, and then some. To me, that is the main goal of FIRST, to get students interested in these fields, give them the knowledge they need to be successful in them, and give them real life experience in complex problem solving.

Now, as to the topic of this discussion. The only way I would be able to agree to such an award is if there were some grading system that takes into consideration that programming is a dynamic field. That is, there is NO 1 way to do 1 thing. Shoot, there are more ways to figure out one problem than people that know how to figure them out. I think that the awards should stay focused on the end result, that is, how well is the code making the robot do what it is supposed instead of how well is the code supposed to make the robot do what it is supposed to do.