What do you think about how easy theyre making programming?

[IAmDave0887]

the programming is too way easy this year. Writing the code this year is going to be boring and too simple. 2 years of programming classes down the drain. Oh well now we have more time to build instead of debug so its not all a bad thing. Good luck to all the FIRST teams this year. 44 days of build time left as of now

[CJO]

Seriously,

Take a look at the code before you start talking. If the kevin.org/frc version is correct, the "scipted" commands are simply a matrix in the file "commands.h." That being the case, all you are really doing is calling macros, besides, if you can integrate the Camera system effectivly with interrupts, etc., you are doing well. Finally, you do not have to use the scripting, if you are really that good, go ahead and write in binary.

[BandChick]

I think what FIRST has done gives MORE students potential in programming and engineering that they didn't have before. I don't speak programming, not well anyway, but with the new code I can actually understand what's going on. And to me, that's golden. I would love to understand more than just what the robot is made of and how it works. This gives every student, not just the programmers, to try their hand at something new. I think we all need to remember that FIRST is about inspiration, not about competition. With the new code I think FIRST is more likely to see kids heading in the programming direction that might have been afraid to previously.

[KevinH]

Every team this year is also getting pieces to build gearboxes and frames out of a kit, and I don't think all of the mechs are complaining. Rookie teams are happy that they can get a successful robot and focus on making a robot competitive now, rather than just a robot, while I expect most veteran teams are still going to build all of their own gearboxes and chassis.

Same with programming- I expect most veteran teams will use what they know and write at a lower level w/o scripting or at least extending their scripting to be more powerful, while rookie teams will use the 'out-of-the-box' code.

If FIRST removed the ability to code at a lower level, there would be a problem, but they didn't. Rookie teams are still going to need to figure out what to do with the tools to be competitive.

I think that FIRST is very worried about veteran teams getting so much more advanced than rookie teams that rookie teams never stand a chance. That's why this year they tried to find ways to help rookie teams remain competitive with the most of the teams at a competition, and that's why this year we have a 3v3 game: in 1v1's rookies stand a suffer alone, is 2v2's, the veteran paired with a rookie often stands at a significant disadvantage, but in a 3v3, a rookie team doesn't really matter as much as past years. 3 team alliances also force rookie and veteran teams to talk, to strategize together, and helps rookie teams learn from the veterans.

I think the biggest difference this year is that this game is different-- there's no big mechanical challenge this year like 10' high chin-ups, but there's a big strategy challenge in managing the alliances. I think this is the biggest 'problem' this year, and that kits and better default code was inevitable.

[CJO]

The FIRST scripting has just been released. That means that all of this complaining was without even seeing the "scripting." Kevin Watson wrote the scripting system. It is available at kevin.org/frc.

Please download the zip, and take a look at the way it works before you start complaining, even the writing is difficult. Not to mention, the Camera software is not supported by the scripting system . . . so, all of you "its too easy to program" people, figure out a way to make the serial port driver in the FIRST release (required for LCD screens and the new powersystem) interface with the serial port driver required to make the Camera function. In addition, you must develop scripting commands for each camera function. Then, add interrupts, encoders, math libraries, gyro control, banner sensor control (for those of you who do wheel rev counts), custom interface control (a nightmare to adapt to the new serial drivers), and any custom robot parts, and then, sure, its almost easy.

P.S.: For anyone not thrilled to do all that themselves, I have posted a version of the default code in the white papers section here. It includes support for the camera, the new Dynamic Diagnostics Tool (included in IFI loader 1.8), LCD screens, and the power system, it also incorperates interrupts, encoder control, and gyro control. In addition I have included the cordic math libraries and basic camera control, while maintaining the scripting set-up.

[cabbagekid2]

I wouldn't mind looking at your code to see how you got all those things incorporated, but when I tried looking for it in the white paper section, it wasn't there. Did you not post it up there yet? I'll check back later.

Thanks.

[Mike Betts]

Originally Posted by CJO

The FIRST scripting has just been released. That means that all of this complaining was without even seeing the "scripting." ...

Chris,

Well said! This is hardly a trivial challenge.

Regards,

[Mike Betts]

Originally Posted by KevinH

...I think the biggest difference this year is that this game is different-- there's no big mechanical challenge this year like 10' high chin-ups,...

Kevin,

I do not think that you have looked at the game close enough...

Center of gravity and strength of materials will be a huge problem for a majority of teams. In fact, I think it likely that an awful lot of teams will not be able to solve the problem.

[KevinH]

Originally Posted by Mike Betts

Center of gravity and strength of materials will be a huge problem for a majority of teams. In fact, I think it likely that an awful lot of teams will not be able to solve the problem.

Still, I feel like lifting a pvc tetra to cap a the 7' tall goal isn't as hard having a robot lift itself up on a 10' bar.

[EDIT]
Not to mention climbing the steps to get to the bar...

[IAmDave0887]

your right the coding is easier to understand. i just figured that easier meant worse but now that i've given it a second look its easier to understand and teach to new members so they can take over for the seniors who are leaving after this season. i do agree with you in that it gives more people a chance to see if they like programming.

[galewind]

Originally Posted by seanwitte

This is real life. Nobody is going to pay you to write something thats already been done a hundred times. The challenge is to take all of this pre-existing code and do something useful with it. Believe me, I understand what you're saying. Do you honestly think that NASA could have put those rovers on Mars if they wrote everything from scratch? Take what they give you, study it, and extend it. Its great to want to do it yourself, but while you're coding and testing your math library in week three you could be refining some mind blowing autonomous code.

I agree 100%. Just because they give us some better scripts doesn't mean that they're handing us the code. Instead of giving us some wood and nails and saying "build us a box", they're handing us power tools and saying "now make us something cool"

I, for one, am very excited about the idea. I just need time to look things over and play with it a bit.

[bigqueue]

Originally Posted by seanwitte

This is real life. Nobody is going to pay you to write something thats already been done a hundred times. The challenge is to take all of this pre-existing code and do something useful with it. Believe me, I understand what you're saying. Do you honestly think that NASA could have put those rovers on Mars if they wrote everything from scratch? Take what they give you, study it, and extend it. Its great to want to do it yourself, but while you're coding and testing your math library in week three you could be refining some mind blowing autonomous code.

This is exactly the right way to look at it...and accurate too.

[Chris_Elston]

Originally Posted by seanwitte

This is real life. Nobody is going to pay you to write something thats already been done a hundred times. The challenge is to take all of this pre-existing code and do something useful with it. Believe me, I understand what you're saying. Do you honestly think that NASA could have put those rovers on Mars if they wrote everything from scratch? Take what they give you, study it, and extend it. Its great to want to do it yourself, but while you're coding and testing your math library in week three you could be refining some mind blowing autonomous code.

I for one totally agree with the above statments.

In the REAL WORLD, I program servos and industrial robots everyday. Every vendor now a days is coming out with their own scripting or I call it "Mnemonics". It totally follows the path of what the industrial automation theme is leaning toward. Because of my job, time is critical to complete a task within a required time. Design time is critical to make a profit on a job. The easier it is to program the servo or industrial robot, the more money I make for the company I work for and the less stress on me. There is nothing wrong with a "CAN" package software in my opinion. It what you do with it.

[colt527]

Originally Posted by chakorules

I for one totally agree with the above statments.

In the REAL WORLD, I program servos and industrial robots everyday. Every vendor now a days is coming out with their own scripting or I call it "Mnemonics". It totally follows the path of what the industrial automation theme is leaning toward. Because of my job, time is critical to complete a task within a required time. Design time is critical to make a profit on a job. The easier it is to program the servo or industrial robot, the more money I make for the company I work for and the less stress on me. There is nothing wrong with a "CAN" package software in my opinion. It what you do with it.

Yes, this is more like real life, BUT WHAT ARE YOU LEARNING. I'm basically going to rephrase my paragraphs above here. OK, is the FRC challenge completely based on real life problems that have not been done before? Are there robots already out there that can pick up tetrahedral shape objects. I'm sure there is, but does FIRST give you them and then tell you to just control it better then everyone else? FIRST is not entirely about real life, IMO, its about the experience along the way. I may sound like I'm raining on everyones parade by maybe limiting what "cool" things the robots can do, but I don't think this is about making it do "cool" and impressive things, it's about challenging yourself to make the robot work to the best that you possibly can and being proud about the fact that you did it on your own. Let's say you are a rookie team and you get dead reckoning to work and you know that you put all of your problem solving efforts into making it work, I believe it is just as gratifying as a veteran team putting all of their efforts into making an automatically shifting transmission that maximizes the torque and uses PID control. The rookie team may not win the regional, but is that what FIRST is really about?

I think that this is taking away from the learning and putting more of a focus on real life things. Sure you can still learn C, just because you don't need it doesn't stop someone from going out and learning about it, but people seem to learn what they need to learn. Maybe this is my Social Studies teachers fault. We have to read 8-15 pages a night and the next day we get a quiz on it that makes up for your grade. I read because I know I will be tested on it the next day. Last year I could get away with not reading because I would just cram the day before the test and do fine, but I really didn't learn (enough with the wild tangents). The point is (and I can't speak for everyone) is that some people learn what they need to. If you don't NEED to learn C, then you might not bother learning it, and you might not discover that programming may be your true passion.

Also, I sort of briefly mentioned this in my last post. Where does the code that they give you come from. SOMEONE HAD TO WRITE IT. Lets go on another tangent adventure. Say you work for a computer game company, and you are creating a game, you will usually use a game engine already written and this is fine. But what if you work for the company that writes that engine from scratch?

I don't really know why I feel this way, but I've been like this all my life. I NEED to re-invent something, I want to learn the true inner workings of things and I just believe this is taking the chance away from people in order to do that. Maybe it comes down to the fact that I believe that FIRST should not just be an opportunity for engineers to find their true passion, but computer scientists and PR people and everyone involved as well.

[vtrehan]

I don’t like it, I don’t like it one bit. As far as I understand, the purpose of FIRST is to give students experience and education with technology and science and leave them with a sense of pride and accomplishment.

The builders get pride after building the robot with their own hands, and the programmers get pride out of giving life to the robot by using tools that give them experience in problem solving for the real life; however by handing out this new system they have snatched all the glory out of the hands of the programmers. What’s next, they are going to send us pre-built robots, to just play with?

As far as real life is concerned, many of us are aspiring engineers, the ones responsible to develop the technologies of tomorrow, by providing these tools they have taken away the learning process and the experience of real life that FIRST should supposedly provide.

Well that’s how I see it,
Vivek.