We have Labview, C++, and Java. How about Stickers? If it is good enough for preschool, why not High School?
Because stickers are an oversimplified control system for the complex beasts that are FIRST robots?
But really, if you really want to program your robot with stickers, feel free to write a wrapper for HAL
I don’t know the capabilities of stickers, but if it can loop, set motor values, has conditional statements, and read sensor data, then it can be used for FRC. The control systems for FRC robots are elementary at best. It’s (for the most part) tele-operated, and the autonomous routines can be drafted in an hour if you sit down and think about it.
And it’s not like teams really follow the method of developing control systems. They don’t make a formal mathematical representation of the system you want to control (and then linearizing it). They don’t analyse it by using its phase portrait by computing the state trajectory or by looking at its initial response. They don’t switch to frequency from time via the Laplace transform, or compute the eigenvalues, obtain the transform function, and plot the Nyquist and Bode diagram. Or design a control loop based on a control law such as state feedback or pole placement.
Just because it’s a tool doesn’t mean it’s a good tool…
I was just saying it can be done. Should it? Probably not.
One thing my teams lead mentor always said was how we use industry grade materials and languages. Stickers goes against this idea of industry level, as it is used primarily in classrooms. This would be the biggest reason to not include stickers. We use LabVIEW, java, and c++ because of the experience students can receive, not for their simplicity or ease of programming.