>> Maybe you can enlighten me as to why I should be using the V5
> compiler
>> instead of the V6? Since I had no feedback other than Dan Michaels
> of
>> Oricomtech saying something like V5 was better documented and had
>> better examples, I ended up just using the V6 compiler.
>
> I haven't heard from Dan lately. I hope all is well!
Last I talked to him he was experimenting with more powerful processors.
> V6 spent years in beta. There are two ways to look at that: first,
> the compiler is perfect or, second, it wasn't a priority. Well, we
> know it isn't perfect. I guess I just got put off by the amount of
> time it spent in beta with no apparent effort to move it forward.
>
> OTOH, V5 with all its' warts is a known quantity. It has been around
> since Win95 and, while it lacks the newer objects, it is a lot more
> stable.
>
> I haven't spent ANY time looking at the new objects because I don't
> plan to upgrade to V6 any time soon. Maybe if I did some reading, I
> would get motivated. Or not... It's frustrating when things don't
> work. oEvents comes to mind.
Yes, I agree. I tend to be a real stickler about reliable tools. Ever
since I started doing serious development back in 1980 I have focused
on reliable, stable tools. My first real experience was the Microsoft
Pascal compiler. (Pre MS-DOS if you can imagine that.) The damned
thing would get into some state where it assumed that the content of
the processor's register set had not changed across a subroutine call.
The result was bizarre results. One would go over one's code and not
see the logic error. One would insert some debug statements and
everything would work fine. One would remove the debug statements and
the code would go to hell again. I finally documented the behavior by
disassembling the code generated by the compiler and sending it to
them. They continued to deny there was a problem. It was at that time
I realized that I really didn't want anything from Microsoft. So far
they have managed to maintain my faith in them.
>> Not sure it can. It assumes that there are two I/O lines, one for
> the
>> ping and one for the echo. Not sure if you can use the same line
> for
>> both. You would probably have to try it out.
>
> I don't have the sonar device and there could be issues with the two
> pin approach. Ordinarily, I would solve that by using either one pin
> or at least turning the output pin into an input so it would float
> when not pinging. But I have no idea how it is actually
> implemented.
That makes sense. Also, the SRF-05 has a three-pin mode which combines
the ping input and the echo output so it is hardware compatible with
the Parallax PING(((.
--
Brian Lloyd Granite Bay Montessori
brian AT gbmontessori DOT com 9330 Sierra College Blvd.
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) Roseville, CA 95661, USA
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oopic/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:oopic-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:oopic-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
oopic-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
No comments:
Post a Comment