should there be a award for programming skill?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The Judge's Award is one of the few that explicitly mention rewarding effort rather than focusing on results. It would seem to be well suited for the kind of situation you describe.

And it can be awarded for almost anything the judges like. So if you sell your good programming, you could get it.

[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.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

What do you mean, "but"? You're giving examples that support my point rather than oppose it.

The General Motors Industrial Design Award is not based on the technique or skill of the people doing the design. It's based on the "form and function" of the finished product.

You could have the best designed robot in the world ... but without the programming it would be just a great paperweight ... and would never win this award. Yet there is no 'award' specifically for programming.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

The Motorola Quality Award is not based on the technique or skill of the people building the parts. It's based on the "robustness" of the finished product.

Again ... You could have the most robust robot out there ... but without the programming, no one would ever know or care.

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

As EricH pointed out, the existing Rockwell Automation Innovation in Control Award seems a perfect answer for someone asking about a way to reward the programming.

The innovation in controls award is not programming specific. Many teams have won it for their hardware controls and things like heads-up displays, specialized interfaces (like a representational arm) and integration with sensors for field position controls. And while all of these include a programming aspect, the award is not programming specific.

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

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur

The innovation in controls award is not programming specific. Many teams have won it for their hardware controls and things like heads-up displays, specialized interfaces (like a representational arm) and integration with sensors for field position controls. And while all of these include a programming aspect, the award is not programming specific.

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

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.

[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....

[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.)