Go to Post They may call us geeks and nerds, but deep down under that prejudice they know they want to be the hard-core, sleep-deprived, hand drill-toting, robot builders we know we are! - vijay24 [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > Technical > Programming
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-25-2010, 04:30 PM
taichichuan's Avatar
taichichuan taichichuan is offline
Software Mentor
AKA: Mike Anderson
FRC #0116 (Epsilon Delta)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Herndon, VA
Posts: 328
taichichuan has much to be proud oftaichichuan has much to be proud oftaichichuan has much to be proud oftaichichuan has much to be proud oftaichichuan has much to be proud oftaichichuan has much to be proud oftaichichuan has much to be proud oftaichichuan has much to be proud oftaichichuan has much to be proud oftaichichuan has much to be proud of
Send a message via AIM to taichichuan
Re: Anyone interested in a Linux-based robot solution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvarndell View Post
Things would have been be very different.
I am terribly disappointed that Wind River withheld vxsim from the FIRST packages.
Even better, far better, would be a virtual cRio that could run the same target binaries as the real hardware.



My concerns are not with Linux.
I am concerned that supporting another target OS would spread even thinner the apparently already over-burdened target software development resources being applied to FRC control systems.
Yes, maybe a QEMU implementation with a virtual set of hardware. I know that WRS uses QEMU for its training classes. However, I think they're doing ARM rather than PPC. I believe QEMU does support a PPC instruction-set simulator, but I'm not sure about a virtual PPC 5200 that could run the FRC binaries. But, something like that would certainly go a long way to giving folks a chance to work with the code without needing the physical cRIO hardware.

As for software development resources, I certainly understand your concerns. However, reworking the WPILib to make it O/S independent might actually be a good thing overall. There are several places where there are good examples in the WPILib already like the "CRITICAL_REGION/END_REGION" code. If they followed that pattern, the O/S-specific code could be limited to a small header file and some glue code.

Personally, I found that the WPILib itself had a significantly steep learning curve. Certainly, the documentation on the theory of operation on WPILib left much to be desired. As someone who has been working in the controls biz as long as I have, I found the WPILib inscrutable in many cases (such as how to create and monitor a thread). Thank goodness I had access to some great mentors on the team who had prior experience that could answer my questions. I'm not sure where that leaves rookie teams.

And, as an example of what you *should* do in real-time control code, WPILib has many examples of how academics and field practice differ. Of course, I'm talking about the C++ code. I can't speak to the Java or Labview code. IMHO, WPILib is a good effort at trying to hide the details. But, the devil is in the details for embedded code.

As I watched the threads here on CD, I began to get the feeling that many teams were simply shotgunning the problems. Without the understanding of what was really going on under the hood in the WPILib, many just seemed to be trying stuff at random. Yes, the WPILib code is available for download. And, believe me, I would have had a hard time understanding much without the sources to go look at. But, I feel that the kids are encouraged to treat the code as a black box and simply accept what it does. We're missing a good teaching moment by not looking under the hood to understand how it works.

So, we come back to the reason I started this thread. The goal is to make the code more accessible by providing a less expensive way to get it into the kid's hands and allow them to play with it, test code, and understand what's going on both during and outside of the build season. I feel that getting a good simulator may be one way to make this happen. But, I also feel that getting the code and interfaces running on a less expensive platform may be another.

Let me emphasize here. These are simply my opinions. They're probably worth what you paid for them ;-) .

Mike
 


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Running MPLAB and JEDIVCS under Gutsy-based Linux Distributions? techwizrd Programming 13 01-13-2008 07:34 PM
Anyone interested in a webserver? Leon Machado IV Website Design/Showcase 14 08-25-2003 07:45 PM
Anyone interested in winning a Segway? ateene Dean Kamen's Inventions 4 10-24-2002 06:38 PM
Anyone interested in a Mascot competition? DUCKIE Chit-Chat 6 04-05-2002 09:31 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59 AM.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi