[FTC]: Pros/ cons of programming languages

[PhilBot]

As much as I love C, we're going to use LabVIEW this year.

Why...

Because we're also using it for FRC.

And why are we using it for FRC?

Because we're also using it for FTC

Seriously, NI is destined to become a force in the robotics industry, now that they've captured FIRST's mind and soul.

I see C and C++ as the "programmer's" language, but LabVIEW as the "Scientist and Engineer's" language. Since the later is a bigger part of the the pie... I thought it best to bite the bullet and lead the charge.

If using labVIEW encourages more students to become programmers, they can learn C++ in their CS classes

[stea1thk1ll]

Hey...me and my team is doing FRC this year for the first time. Our fabricators/engineers know how their job works but as a programmer I really don't know to much on "Robot Programming". I do VB/html web based programming but do not know much on other types. I am willing to learn how and want to be ready.
So first of all, it seems like either RobotC or lab view are the most popular ones to use. For a programmer like me, which one should I use. I can easily learn in like a month all about it so I just want to know which one is better to use. Please reply.

[ttldomination]

Hey stealthkill,

I'm sure you have some basics of programming down, so I would suggest that you go through and try to learn RobotC. RobotC is easy to learn and even easier to use. Visit www.ftctraining.com to get started.

After that, I would suggest you expand your knowledge to Labview. Labview may be difficult, I think it would be beneficial for you to create a strong base in RobotC before you go testing Labview.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by PhilBot

... we're going to use LabVIEW this year. ...

So are we, and for many of the same reasons.

Please try out our FTC LabView Programming Template, and let the community know about anything you find there that needs fixing, or that could be helpfully changed or added.

[PhilBot]

Hi Richard...

That's pretty cool and useful. In many ways it mimics the template that shipped with the FRC LabVIEW beta test. Lots of good comments too.

I've been playing with the encoder controls a bit, and your code would be easilly adapted to that to (constant speed vs move motor)

My only trivial suggestion is that instead of inverting the drive signal to one motor, you can set the "Invert" input to "true" for that wheel.

The only reason I mention this is because if you do end up using the encoder based motor drives, the "invert" input is also used by the encoder code, so both motors will count in the same direction, even though one is running in "reverse".

Phil.

[Richard Wallace]

Thanks for the suggestions, Phil. I will pass them along to the team's software developers.

To avoid further hijacking of this thread, can I ask that further discussion of ways improve the template be moved to the other thread?

[Team 288]

What programming language are we going to use this year?
I asked myself the same question at the beginning of the season. Then I took my two programmers to a LabVIEW Users Group meeting a few weeks later and one of the people from Innoventor asked my students if they would be interested in an internship once they had learned LabVIEW. I immediately understood that LabVIEW was the right choice. It is the industry standard and to learn anything else would be a waste of time. So we have jumped headfirst into it and haven't looked back since.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Team 288

It is the industry standard and to learn anything else would be a waste of time.

What industry is that?

[ttldomination]

I Don't know. Labview seems a tad bit complex from generic programming. I'm wondering, is there some sort of advantage to Labview compared to RobotC?