.Net On Lego Mindstorm

troop23 writes "A blog posting by Benjamin J. J. Voigt says this "The University of Potsdam has a project to develop a .NET VM for the Lego Mindstorms system. Lego Mindstorms just got a higher priority on my shopping list!" While the thought of using .Net to program Lego Mindstorms may not be palatable, having a mainstream dev environment sure is." Perhaps Mono would work just as well.

Put down the Crack.Net pipe

[jhoger]

.Net for an embedded uC? No more appropriate than Java would be.

C, or assembler, or Forth.

-- John.

Re:Why?

[iamdrscience]

Well there already are C/C++ compilers for Lego mindstorms, so writing a new one wouldn't add that much. Writing a .net VM however fulfills a new purpose. Whether it's really necessary or ideal is another argument, but it definitely provides more new functionality than writing another C compiler would.

Anyways, while you're right a VM is less than ideal for embedded systems, there are embedded Java VMs that people use and to a lesser extent there are people that use python and perl in embedded systems. Sometime it just makes sense to choose a solution that requires more computing power because it allows you to program faster. In fact, I think if there's any case of an embedded system where a VM isn't a big deal it would be one that's just for fun, not production, that is, the exact market of lego mindstorms. I mean, it's really a lot like Basic stamp microcontrollers. It doesn't make sense to build a product around them, but if you're just messing around with stuff there are plenty of people who don't mind paying more so that they can write their code quicker.

Re:Why?

[m50d]

Probably because they want to get lots of young/innovative developers excited about it. And .NET is what a lot of the young/innovative developers are excited about.

Re:Still trying to catch up

[omicronish]

Still trying to catch up ... to Java, huh? This stuff has been around for Java for years now.

Which wouldn't be surprising since Java was released in 1996, while .NET was released in 2002. You could've said the same thing when Java was first implemented on an embedded device. C/C++ and assembly were likely there for years before.

IDL Libraries?

[mysterious_mark]

Great now you'll have to include 60 MB of IDL code to run any program. Where do these ideas come from? Who would think to port a bloated server app development API to a portable device. .NET is loved by managers who think they can dumb down their server side code so any H1-B can do it, that's about it. Nobody even uses .NET for desktop apps, so where'd the idiotic idea that it would take off in a portable environment come from. The main reason I refuse to use .NET for desktop apps is the 60 MB IDL needs to be included, better to VB 6 or anything else for that matter. M

Why not "palatable" to have a .NET environment?

[ellisDtrails]

Please elaborate why it would be a negative to provide the very robust .NET Framekwork to Lego Mindstorms.
I love how the editorial commentary on posts here is full of straw-men and assertions. Prav-dot anyone?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad Sun can't produce cross-platform compatibility even within their own product line. For example, mobile devices use J2ME while PCs use the J2SE framework.

You will find a lot of the J2ME and J2SE are not binary compatible and barely source compatible if you try to port the simplest app. The "Write once, run anywhere" argument doesn't really stand up here IMHO.

Re:Why?

[jrumney]

Windows Mobile uses .NET compact framework while XP uses the normal framework....You'd be better off you use a C++ compiler, or use a proper runtime Java where "write once, run anywhere" actually means something.

Do you think those Java capable mobile phones have the full blown Java API on them, and run standard non-preverified class files?

What's the problem?

[Proc6]

"While the thought of using .Net to program Lego Mindstorms may not be palatable..."

Man what's with the bias against .NET. Oh it's not "worthy" of controlling Lego Mindstorms?

OH NOS! OMGZ, I R NOT HAX0RING MY LEGOS NLESS ITZ IN ASS3MBL3R. .NET BAD K PLZ THX! D0WN WIT MICRO$OFT!!!!111!1!

Seems to me .NET is a good idea, so good in fact it's ripped off by Mono. A solid intelligable foundation library of objects, inter language, cross platform compatability. C# is a very enjoyable language to work in for some of us (personal preference). There's always the /.'ers with monkeys on their backs that insist its one huge elaborate Microsoft bait and switch to lock everyone into the Microsoft Evil Empire, but it seems to me theres a ton of positives as well, ECMA standardization, dozens of .NET capable languages now, and the MONO project is a great thing (that is a direct result, like it or not, of .NET being born). So whats with all this "oh nos, its Microsoft, so I shall not dirty my hands of complimenting it! Must bash in every post ever!".

Open your minds like you open your source and you might learn something, like some tools are good for some jobs, other tools for other jobs. Not everything that comes from MS is evil and not everything that comes from OSS is good.

Flame away.

Oh FFS...

[kahei]

Perhaps Mono would work just as well.

'Mono' and '.NET' are not two competing products. .NET is a standard.

Mono is an implementation of it, together with some development tools and non-standard libs and bits and pieces.

The MS .NET runtime (bit of a misnomer really) is also an implementation of it, together with some development tools and non-standard libs and bits and pieces.

You cannot 'use Mono instead of .NET'. What you COULD do is port Mono to Mindstorms rather than developing a .NET VM from scratch.

This has been a public service announcement from the department of Things That The Average Slashdotter Cannot 'Get' No Matter How Often They Are Mentioned (TTTASC'G'NMHOTAM). In next week's exciting episode, we explain the difference between copyright violation and theft, and three posters reply by saying 'you can dress it up in fancy talk all you want but it's still theft!'

Re:Java VM

[owlstead]

I'd rather program for that. Both for mobile phones as for Smartcards there once was a MS alternative. Both seem to fail where Java succeeds. I wonder what big advantages .NET can buy you in comparison what a good development environment (e.g. Eclipse) with J2ME can offer. Especially since the latter is free. On the other hand, a bit of (true) competition never hurt the market.

The lego design flaw.

[Kevin143]

I did a lot of lego design for a robotics competition I competed in last year. While legos are great because they are so easy to use, I can't stand using them for anything even slightly large in scale because of what I have dubbed "The Lego Design Flaw." Basically, there is a 6:5 ratio of height to width on legos which makes construction and reinforcement much, much more difficult than it needs to be when working in the full 3 dimensions that the Lego Technic allows one to work in.

Re:Put down the Crack.Net pipe

[jhoger]

Well, for an embedded system you don't need any VM. You can just program in C or assembler for your target.

But say you want to take the VM approach, I suppose one is as good as any. Forth has the advantage though of being older, tried, and tested.

To my mind the main things going for Java and .Net is the fairly comprehensive runtime. But none of that comes along with you onto the embedded platform, so why not just go with old stolid Forth, with as much assembler as you need?

Frankly though most uCs do just fine with whatever C compiler exists that has been tailored to that uC. Unless you're just dying for C# or Java syntax, the mainstream firmware programmer who will hopefully maintain the software (and keep support requests away from your desk) is probably going to be more comfortable with C or assembler, remotely possibly Forth.

Respoinding to consumer pressure

[EmbeddedJanitor]

It seems that basic Lego stuff like bricks, technics and the robotic stuff (ie. the real creative/educational stuff) is suffering a turndown due to a shift in consumer spending.

It used to be that Lego was about the most interactive toy/game available. Build and break stuff and make it work.

These days there are far more stimulating interactive alternatives (computer games etc). Given the choice between an XBox and a Mindstorms set, most kids will choose the XBox. Lego's core biz is suffering in this competition for toy/entertainment dollars. Perhaps this is a reason for them shifting towards the theme toys (harry potter etc).

Is this a sad predictor of the fate of geekdom?

Re:Is Lego back on firm financial ground?

[0racle]

Ya but I haven't done it.

Languages

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it really stupid that people on here are saying stuff like "Why use .NET when this has already been done with C | C++ | Java". People who program on a regular basis tend to use a specific language(s) more often than not. It'd be like saying "Why speak English when French | German | Japanese is better?". I spend most of my time writing things in C# and PHP, I don't want to learn C++ or Java to write programs for fricken legos. And for everyone who calls .NET a Java clone, it may be, but just because it wasen't first, doesn't mean it's not better. JSP anyone?