1/13/2013 10:35:12 PM #
Yes, it is actual Chinese curse words that they use in Firefly. They have someone on staff to do the translations.
Dr. Morrison from Pascal Programming For Schools reports using Oxygene for Java on the Raspberry Pi. www.pp4s.co.uk/main/prog-rockpaperscissors02.html
In theory you should be able to use Oxygene for .NET to program the Netduino, which is mostly hardware compatible with the Arduino - It is compatible with most of the same shields. http://netduino.com/
1/14/2013 9:19:50 AM #
Netduino looks very interesting -- thanks.
1/13/2013 10:46:54 PM #
I guess I should have said "They HAD someoen on staff . . . " since the show is no more.
BTW, the Netduino is a little more expensive then the Arduino, but it is a more powerful board (more RAM and processing power).
1/14/2013 5:05:36 AM #
and what does '1' and '' mean?
1/14/2013 1:10:43 PM #
1/14/2013 5:59:18 AM #
1/14/2013 9:45:17 AM #
At the science project level, if you've not been there, check www.avrfreaks.net. Lots of good content, and leads to more.
1/14/2013 1:48:31 PM #
Let's have a hearty disagreement here. Your example is a perfect example of a bad example. When you have the full code, you also have the routine signature and (hopefully) the name and type of the parameters can make them obvious.
Presenting things like in your example, you should even be going after numerical parameters because it's impossible to know the type when you write -- myMonster.Routine(1, 2, 3); --. You can't even know if they are signed or unsigned, small or big, and more importantly, you have no idea of what they represent.
At least with Boolean types, the semantic is clear.
I would have more a problem with having too many parameters in your routine than the last 2 ones being Boolean.
And I stand by my comment in your original post, instead of creating a zillion of different enum types for every Boolean you want to use, create the appropriate public routines that can call a more general private one (provided you need it in the first place to centralize code and avoid duplication).
1/14/2013 2:47:33 PM #
Arduino Delphi or Pascal
Yeah, I would vote for that. I would imagine that the code would have to be console as there is no visual output. Also someone would have to finally figure out that we really do need a way to communicate with the serial(USB) port on the computer.
I do see that the FreePascal Community is working on something I wish I knew more about it to be able to help out.
1/15/2013 3:13:09 PM #
I see two problems with this code:
- using booleans where you could have used more descriptive enumerations
1/15/2013 5:00:56 PM #
Popping back, noticed the drone thing. I'm more interested in some of the fixed wing designs just for power efficiency reasons. There's some interesting work being done using wing portal fans to get VTOL capability into flying wings. That will hopefully give you a reasonably maneuverable, reasonable flight time/range vehicle that has better failure modes than the quadrotor things. Which, BTW, anything fails and they immediately fall out of the sky. Even pentarotor would be better, but the people lofting valuable paylos seem to use octarotor designs, presumably so even two rotor failures leave the device flyable, and allow them to run two independent powertrains.
Moz is scanning the skies
1/16/2013 11:01:55 PM #
You could expand on Francios' example, and incorporate attributes to show how to create a lightweight OPF. One that infers database mappings based on property names, but which can be overridden with custom attributes perhaps.
The views I express here are entirely my own and not necessarily those of any other rational person or organization. However, I strongly recommend that you agree with pretty much everything I say because, well, I'm right. Most of the time. Except when I'm not, in which case, you shouldn't agree with me.
Powered by BlogEngine.NET 188.8.131.52
Theme by Mooglegiant and modified by Nick Hodges