From: ja...@cco.caltech.edu (John Lindal) Subject: Programming the new RCX (mindstorm) Date: 1998/06/12 Message-ID: <6lsdkp$861@gap.cco.caltech.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 362170726 Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego Have any of the hardware gurus thought about programming LEGO's new RCX directly? If one could figure out how one talks to the computer side of the IR link, one could write a C library and bypass LEGO's programming language... John Lindal
From: Russell Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> Subject: Re: Programming the new RCX (mindstorm) Date: 1998/06/13 Message-ID: <m2lnr1v38d.fsf@desk.crynwr.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 362299978 References: <6lsdkp$861@gap.cco.caltech.edu> Organization: Crynwr Software Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego ja...@cco.caltech.edu (John Lindal) writes: > Have any of the hardware gurus thought about programming LEGO's new > RCX directly? If one could figure out how one talks to the computer side > of the IR link, one could write a C library and bypass LEGO's programming > language... Rumor has it that they're going to tell us how to do that. Hehe. Just *imagine* the things we'll be able to do if we don't have to waste time reverse-engineering it. -- -russ <nel...@crynwr.com> http://web.crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | Freedom is the primary 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | cause of Peace, Love, Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | Truth and Justice.
From: lan...@iei.net Subject: Re: Programming the new RCX (mindstorm) Date: 1998/06/13 Message-ID: <6lv3he$la0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 362403459 References: <6lsdkp$861@gap.cco.caltech.edu> X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT) Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jun 13 23:55:26 1998 GMT Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego As soon as I get one, I'm going to examine the serial interface. If it's not too difficult, I'll cook something up. I know there was some other kind of lego device, a dacta thing I think, that had to be sent a secret "sentence" before it could be programmed. If TLG is smart, they'll be nice about people reverse engineering their stuff. That have to know it's going to happen. Maybe they'll publish the interface! brian In article <6lsdkp$8...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, ja...@cco.caltech.edu (John Lindal) wrote: > > Have any of the hardware gurus thought about programming LEGO's new > RCX directly? If one could figure out how one talks to the computer side > of the IR link, one could write a C library and bypass LEGO's programming > language... > > John Lindal > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
From: Jeff Elliott <jef...@telepres.com> Subject: Re: Programming the new RCX (mindstorm) Date: 1998/06/18 Message-ID: <35889F7C.40A9@telepres.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 364402102 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6lsdkp$861@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <6lv3he$la0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> NNTP-Posting-Time: 20 Jun 1998 04:38:20 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: jef...@telepres.com To: lan...@iei.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Interlog Internet Services Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego lan...@iei.net wrote: > > As soon as I get one, I'm going to examine the serial interface. If it's not > too difficult, I'll cook something up. I know there was some other kind of > lego device, a dacta thing I think, that had to be sent a secret "sentence" > before it could be programmed. If TLG is smart, they'll be nice about people > reverse engineering their stuff. That have to know it's going to happen. > Maybe they'll publish the interface! > > brian > I've heard that the sentence for the old Dacta controller was something like "Do you byte when I knock?" (From computer) "Just a bit off the block." (From controller) And according to what I've read, Lego puts pretty dire threats about reverse engineering into their instructions, etc. Don't know if they'd bother going after Lego users, but they'd definitely like to prevent their competitors from doing it. Jeff
From: Niels Kistrup <NielsK...@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Programming the new RCX (mindstorm) Date: 1998/06/14 Message-ID: <3583EA3D.4B39A9D4@compuserve.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 362551618 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6lsdkp$861@gap.cco.caltech.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego John, Why stop at 'C'; go for a real language like C++ or Delphi. OOL seem to be a natural for robotics. Elements such as sensors and motors easily map to objects. If I knew the format for the resulting object code, I'd being working on writing a very simple C++ compiler (no multiple inheritance, register variables, strings, namespaces, templates, etc., etc.) this weekend. Niels John Lindal wrote: > Have any of the hardware gurus thought about programming LEGO's new > RCX directly? If one could figure out how one talks to the computer side > of the IR link, one could write a C library and bypass LEGO's programming > language... > > John Lindal
From: ja...@cco.caltech.edu (John Lindal) Subject: Re: Programming the new RCX (mindstorm) Date: 1998/06/17 Message-ID: <6m71vo$sco@gap.cco.caltech.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 363359396 References: <6lsdkp$861@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3583EA3D.4B39A9D4@compuserve.com> Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego Niels Kistrup <NielsK...@compuserve.com> writes: >Why stop at 'C'; go for a real language like C++ or Delphi. OOL seem to be a >natural for robotics. Elements such as sensors and motors easily map to >objects. Personally, I use C++, but I said C because I figured there was a bigger following for that. Once the specs are published, I would expect C, C++, BASIC, etc, etc libraries. John
From: lan...@iei.net Subject: Re: Programming the new RCX (mindstorm) Date: 1998/06/19 Message-ID: <6mcj9p$flr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 364073697 References: <6lsdkp$861@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <3583EA3D.4B39A9D4@compuserve.com> <6m71vo$sco@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <35871C66.BB4665C8@compuserve.com> X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows NT) Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Jun 19 02:44:09 1998 GMT Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego You could make the argument that my toilet is object oriented. Hey, it has a seat position property and a flush method. I'll let the object oriented biased posts go as long as you promise not to tell us how woderful Java is. brian P.S. after 10 years of procedural programming, Microsoft Foundation Classes is the first and only practial application of C++ and object oriented technology I've seen. If the only programming interface to the rcx is a c++ object, I'll have to vomit. In article <35871C66...@compuserve.com>, Niels Kistrup <NielsK...@compuserve.com> wrote: > > John, > > Unfortunately I would have to agree that 'C' is a lower common denominator. > Still, for sensors and motors, an OO approach is natural. > > Niels > > John Lindal wrote: > > > Niels Kistrup <NielsK...@compuserve.com> writes: > > > > >Why stop at 'C'; go for a real language like C++ or Delphi. OOL seem to be a > > >natural for robotics. Elements such as sensors and motors easily map to > > >objects. > > > > Personally, I use C++, but I said C because I figured there was a bigger > > following for that. Once the specs are published, I would expect C, C++, > > BASIC, etc, etc libraries. > > > > John > > -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
From: sillywiz@excession.demon.co._delete_this_.uk (Keith M. Lucas) Subject: Re: Programming the new RCX (mindstorm) Date: 1998/06/19 Message-ID: <EutCBK.MML@excession.demon.co._delete_this_.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 364651465 References: <6lsdkp$861@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <6m71vo$sco@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <35871C66.BB4665C8@compuserve.com> <6mcj9p$flr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Complaints-To: ab...@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!post-12.mail.demon.net! post.mail.demon.net![194.222.65.210]!excession.demon.co.uk X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 898410658 mail2news: 8173 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk Organization: Excession Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego In article <6mcj9p$flr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <lan...@iei.net> wrote: >P.S. after 10 years of procedural programming, Microsoft Foundation Classes >is the first and only practial application of C++ and object oriented >technology I've seen. If the only programming interface to the rcx is a c++ >object, I'll have to vomit. Oh dear. After several years of OO programming and more than a decade in various procedural languages, MFC is not the first and only practical application of C++ I've come across, but it's the first that's made me wake up screaming at night. (Most of the others have just depressed me.) Unfortunately, it's lugging around a lot of crap. Firstly, the first versions of the compiler didn't support run-time type info as native and didn't do exception handling properly. Then there are the message maps, when any conscious C++ programmer would use virtual functions, only VC++ 1.0 wasn't fast enough, and now that's locked in as well. Add to that that it's tied to an absolutely not at all OO back end, and all that luvverly Hungarian (which closely resembles vomiting on a keyboard) and it's just pants. Most C++ frameworks are in this state, bending over backwards for compatibility with things and as a result don't have the unbearable lightness of being proper C++. I use Think C Library at work (we're locked into it by historical decision. Seeing a trend here ?) and the whole time you're jumping through hoops, eg: change a window name, remember to ask the menu system to change what it thinks the window, simply because the whole point of OO has been totally, totally missed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sillywizATexcessionDOTdemonDOTcoDOTuk"It's not a personality..it's a bulldozer" --------------------- The Official Irony Generator for the 1998 World Cup -----
From: mat...@disco.tln.net (Matthew Miller) Subject: Re: Programming the new RCX (mindstorm) Date: 1998/06/20 Message-ID: <slrn6ommjf.e9k.mattdm@jadzia.bu.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 364422745 References: <6lsdkp$861@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <6lv3he$la0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35889F7C.40A9@telepres.com> Reply-To: mat...@disco.tln.net Organization: Boston University Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego Jeff Elliott <jef...@telepres.com> wrote: >And according to what I've read, Lego puts pretty dire threats about >reverse engineering into their instructions, etc. Don't know if they'd >bother Man. Guess I won't be reading the instructions. :) -- Matthew Miller ---> mat...@mattdm.org Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
From: Dave Baum <dbaum@no.spam> Subject: Re: Programming the new RCX (mindstorm) Date: 1998/06/20 Message-ID: <358BFED1.FF6F5B35@no.spam>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 364760184 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6lsdkp$861@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <6m71vo$sco@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <35871C66.BB4665C8@compuserve.com> <6mcj9p$flr$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <EutCBK.MML@excession.demon.co._delete_this_.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.toys.lego Keith M. Lucas wrote: > > <snip> > > Most C++ frameworks are in this state, bending over backwards for > compatibility with things and as a result don't have the unbearable > lightness of being proper C++. > > I use Think C Library at work (we're locked into it by historical > decision. Seeing a trend here ?) and the whole time you're jumping > through hoops, eg: change a window name, remember to ask the menu > system to change what it thinks the window, simply because the whole > point of OO has been totally, totally missed. > I have to agree completely on the fact that many GUI frameworks are hindered by being built on top of GUI primitives that were not object oriented. The "Next" was a rather interesting computer - it was truly object oriented from the ground up. Objective C was the implementation language of choice, and the entire GUI (NextStep) was built very cleanly around this. Programming under NextStep was IMHO a far better OO experience than any of today's C/C++ frameworks (MFC, OWL, Think C Library, Power Plant, etc). Too bad Next didn't win. Dave -- ----------------------------------- Reply to dbaum at enteract dot com -----------------------------------