Alt-BEAM Archive
Message #00536
To: Steven Bolt sbolt@xs4all.nl
From: rdraycott@CPL.co.uk
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:04:18 +0000
Subject: [alt-beam] Re: hmmm...i wonder which subject
Isn't the discussion as to which is best (CPU or BeamTek) purley arbetary,
the use of the cpu with a soft coded instruction set has been
widly accepted as the norm because of its flexability and the fact that
fundamental
design mistakes can be botch fixed. (how many revisions of WIN 95 have
there
been to date).The use of a cpu also enables rapid development ,with
the ability to return quickly to the design phase.
The mars lander required reprogramming because the design had a flaw, full
stop
the designers put the thing in a situation it was not designed for!
Get a Spec NASA !!!!!
The perfect design cycle if analysed properly does not go back to the
begining....since there is no need.
It strikes me that the "hard" coding of a beam entity is in the long term a
better
option since in theory the design analysis is forced to one shot option to
the
finished product.With this in mind the beam builder is much more lightly
to
design a system that meets his design spec since he knows that to change
anything later (eg behavior) is going to be expensive and time consuming.
Long term all the indipendent aspects of the robotics community will be
homogenised into one technology anyway so lets just enjoy rather than
envy next doors grass.
Nuff Said
Rob D aka Robert Draycott
PowerBuilder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/alt-beam
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
Home