Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[rodakay]

Hello all,

   Would anyone be interested in forming a group to co-operate with
Ada development of the Mindstoms NXT Robot kit ?

   If so, perhaps we might meet in  #ada  on  irc.freenode.net  to
discuss a suitable forum ?


regards,

Rod.

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[Jacob Sparre Andersen]

Rod wrote:

>    Would anyone be interested in forming a group to co-operate with
> Ada development of the Mindstoms NXT Robot kit ?

How can a fan of LEGO, Ada and robotics say no to that question? ;-)

Yes.

Play well,

Jacob
-- 
A scene from Copenhagen reconstructed in LEGO:
            http://lego.jacob-sparre.dk/Milj%F8er/Stengade/

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[Matteo Bordin]

On Jul 7, 12:27 pm, Jacob Sparre Andersen <spa...@nbi.dk> wrote:
> Rod wrote:
> >    Would anyone be interested in forming a group to co-operate with
> > Ada development of the Mindstoms NXT Robot kit ?
>
> How can a fan of LEGO, Ada and robotics say no to that question? ;-)
>
> Yes.
>
> Play well,
>
> Jacob
> --
> A scene from Copenhagen reconstructed in LEGO:
>            http://lego.jacob-sparre.dk/Milj%F8er/Stengade/


Why don't you create a subgroup of LEGO Fan on Linkedin?
This would give you a virtual place to discuss and would give more
visibility to our beloved language ;-)

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[Martyn Pike]

I run the Ada Programming Language group on Linkedin.com

Would you like me to create a "Ada for Mindstorms" subgroup ?

Martyn

Matteo Bordin wrote:
> On Jul 7, 12:27 pm, Jacob Sparre Andersen <spa...@nbi.dk> wrote:
>> Rod wrote:
>>>    Would anyone be interested in forming a group to co-operate with
>>> Ada development of the Mindstoms NXT Robot kit ?
>> How can a fan of LEGO, Ada and robotics say no to that question? ;-)
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Play well,
>>
>> Jacob
>> --
>> A scene from Copenhagen reconstructed in LEGO:
>>            http://lego.jacob-sparre.dk/Milj%F8er/Stengade/
> 
> 
> Why don't you create a subgroup of LEGO Fan on Linkedin?
> This would give you a virtual place to discuss and would give more
> visibility to our beloved language ;-)

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[rodakay]

   That's wonderful, thank you all for replying.

   Linkedin seems a fine idea, thank you, Martyn.

   I've also set up   #adalego   on   irc.freenode.net   for informal
discussion, if anyone is interested.


regards.

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[AdaMagica]

Why not create a Google group? What's the advantage of having two new
forums (LinkedIn, #adalego)?

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[Ludovic Brenta]

AdaMagica wrote:
> Why not create a Google group? What's the advantage of having two new
> forums (LinkedIn, #adalego)?

Why not use comp.lang.ada and meaningful subject lines like the one
for this thread?  Is the traffic already too high here?

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[rodakay]

On Jul 8, 10:30 pm, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
>
> Why not use comp.lang.ada and meaningful subject lines like the one
> for this thread?  Is the traffic already too high here?

Hello Ludovic,

   Heh, the traffic on cla is *never* too high :).

   The worry is that the traffic on the formal lego forum may become
too high, and so obscure the purer Ada language questions on cla.

   At least, I can live in hope that it will be so ...


cheers.

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[Ludovic Brenta]

On Jul 8, 2:59 pm, roda...@tpg.com.au wrote:
> On Jul 8, 10:30 pm, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> > Why not use comp.lang.ada and meaningful subject lines like the one
> > for this thread?  Is the traffic already too high here?
>
>    Heh, the traffic on cla is *never* too high :).
>
>    The worry is that the traffic on the formal lego forum may become
> too high, and so obscure the purer Ada language questions on cla.
>
>    At least, I can live in hope that it will be so ...

I appreciate your forward thinking but "premature optimization is the
root of all evil".  So, I think comp.lang.ada is appropriate until the
Lego-related traffic becomes to high.  At that point a new forum will
become necessary and justified.  Just my two cents :)

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[rodakay]

On Jul 8, 11:05 pm, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> >    The worry is that the traffic on the formal lego forum may become
> > too high, and so obscure the purer Ada language questions on cla.
>
> >    At least, I can live in hope that it will be so ...
>
> I appreciate your forward thinking but "premature optimization is the
> root of all evil".  

   Heh, and I thought C was the root of all evil ... :).


> So, I think comp.lang.ada is appropriate until the
> Lego-related traffic becomes to high.  At that point a new forum will
> become necessary and justified.  

   I'm convinced. Unless Linkedin has more to offer, cla seems fine
for a beginning.


   #adalego has been set up on irc.freenode.net also, for any
interested.



> Just my two cents :)

   I suspect that your opinions are worth a little more than 2c ... ;)


cheers.

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[Matteo Bordin]

On Jul 8, 3:05 pm, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2:59 pm, roda...@tpg.com.au wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 10:30 pm, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> > > Why not use comp.lang.ada and meaningful subject lines like the one
> > > for this thread?  Is the traffic already too high here?
>
> >    Heh, the traffic on cla is *never* too high :).
>
> >    The worry is that the traffic on the formal lego forum may become
> > too high, and so obscure the purer Ada language questions on cla.
>
> >    At least, I can live in hope that it will be so ...
>
> I appreciate your forward thinking but "premature optimization is the
> root of all evil".  So, I think comp.lang.ada is appropriate until the
> Lego-related traffic becomes to high.  At that point a new forum will
> become necessary and justified.  Just my two cents :)

I have to say I still believe a *subgroup* of the LEGO Fan group on
Linkedin would be the best option. You would have the advantage of
having a dedicated group which is also visible to other LEGO users
around the globe, thus providing more visibility to the Ada language,
to the GNAT-on-MINDSTORMS project and to your discussions. We would
not have these advantages if the discussion takes place on c.l.a or
IRC.

I would be happy to start the discussion to create the new subgroup on
linkedin.

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[Ludovic Brenta]

Matteo Bordin wrote on comp.lang.ada:
> On Jul 8, 3:05 pm, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 2:59 pm, roda...@tpg.com.au wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 8, 10:30 pm, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> > > > Why not use comp.lang.ada and meaningful subject lines like the one
> > > > for this thread?  Is the traffic already too high here?
>
> > >    Heh, the traffic on cla is *never* too high :).
>
> > >    The worry is that the traffic on the formal lego forum may become
> > > too high, and so obscure the purer Ada language questions on cla.
>
> > >    At least, I can live in hope that it will be so ...
>
> > I appreciate your forward thinking but "premature optimization is the
> > root of all evil".  So, I think comp.lang.ada is appropriate until the
> > Lego-related traffic becomes to high.  At that point a new forum will
> > become necessary and justified.  Just my two cents :)
>
> I have to say I still believe a *subgroup* of the LEGO Fan group on
> Linkedin would be the best option. You would have the advantage of
> having a dedicated group which is also visible to other LEGO users
> around the globe, thus providing more visibility to the Ada language,
> to the GNAT-on-MINDSTORMS project and to your discussions. We would
> not have these advantages if the discussion takes place on c.l.a or
> IRC.
>
> I would be happy to start the discussion to create the new subgroup on
> linkedin.

The problems with LinkedIn are its proprietary and centralized nature
and the absence of a search engine.  And it does not allow you to
choose your client, as Usenet does.  Finally, it is a "professional"
network, not necessarily accessible or attractive to teenagers.

Making Ada more visible to the more general Lego Mindstorms is, of
course, a worthy goal.  I therefore suggest the existing Usenet
newsgroup alt.comp.lego-mindstorms as a better solution; in addition
it makes cross-posting to comp.lang.ada possible and even desirable
IMHO.

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[Matteo Bordin]

On Jul 9, 1:14 am, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> Matteo Bordin wrote on comp.lang.ada:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 3:05 pm, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 8, 2:59 pm, roda...@tpg.com.au wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 8, 10:30 pm, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
> > > > > Why not use comp.lang.ada and meaningful subject lines like the one
> > > > > for this thread?  Is the traffic already too high here?
>
> > > >    Heh, the traffic on cla is *never* too high :).
>
> > > >    The worry is that the traffic on the formal lego forum may become
> > > > too high, and so obscure the purer Ada language questions on cla.
>
> > > >    At least, I can live in hope that it will be so ...
>
> > > I appreciate your forward thinking but "premature optimization is the
> > > root of all evil".  So, I think comp.lang.ada is appropriate until the
> > > Lego-related traffic becomes to high.  At that point a new forum will
> > > become necessary and justified.  Just my two cents :)
>
> > I have to say I still believe a *subgroup* of the LEGO Fan group on
> > Linkedin would be the best option. You would have the advantage of
> > having a dedicated group which is also visible to other LEGO users
> > around the globe, thus providing more visibility to the Ada language,
> > to the GNAT-on-MINDSTORMS project and to your discussions. We would
> > not have these advantages if the discussion takes place on c.l.a or
> > IRC.
>
> > I would be happy to start the discussion to create the new subgroup on
> > linkedin.
>
> The problems with LinkedIn are its proprietary and centralized nature
> and the absence of a search engine.  And it does not allow you to
> choose your client, as Usenet does.  Finally, it is a "professional"
> network, not necessarily accessible or attractive to teenagers.
>
> Making Ada more visible to the more general Lego Mindstorms is, of
> course, a worthy goal.  I therefore suggest the existing Usenet
> newsgroup alt.comp.lego-mindstorms as a better solution; in addition
> it makes cross-posting to comp.lang.ada possible and even desirable
> IMHO.
>
> --
> Ludovic Brenta.


I did not know alt.comp.lego-mindstorms: thanks Ludovic! I announced
the availability of the toolset there too.

I agree with you that this group would probably be the best option,
even if it does not seem to have a lot of traffic.

We can always signal interesting discussion on linkedin if needed.

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[Stephen Leake]

rodakay@tpg.com.au writes:

> On Jul 8, 10:30�pm, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
>>
>> Why not use comp.lang.ada and meaningful subject lines like the one
>> for this thread? �Is the traffic already too high here?
>
> Hello Ludovic,
>
>    Heh, the traffic on cla is *never* too high :).
>
>    The worry is that the traffic on the formal lego forum may become
> too high, and so obscure the purer Ada language questions on cla.
>
>    At least, I can live in hope that it will be so ...

If that happens, that's the time to create a separate forum.
-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[rodakay]

On Jul 9, 7:17 pm, Stephen Leake <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org>
wrote:
> roda...@tpg.com.au writes:
> > On Jul 8, 10:30 pm, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
>
> >> Why not use comp.lang.ada and meaningful subject lines like the one
> >> for this thread?  Is the traffic already too high here?
>
> > Hello Ludovic,
>
> >    Heh, the traffic on cla is *never* too high :).
>
> >    The worry is that the traffic on the formal lego forum may become
> > too high, and so obscure the purer Ada language questions on cla.
>
> >    At least, I can live in hope that it will be so ...
>
> If that happens, that's the time to create a separate forum.
> --
> -- Stephe



   Thanks, all. The consensus seems to be for c.l.a as the formal
forum.

   I've also set up the irc channel (currently 5 members).


cheers.

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[Stephen Leake]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> AdaMagica wrote:
>> Why not create a Google group? What's the advantage of having two new
>> forums (LinkedIn, #adalego)?
>
> Why not use comp.lang.ada and meaningful subject lines like the one
> for this thread?  Is the traffic already too high here?

I like the idea of advertising Ada by using a subgroup on the Lego
forum.

Otherwise, I agree with using comp.lang.ada. It would be interesting
to see what traffic results.

However, while I used to do robotics for NASA, I'm not anticipating
doing Lego robotics, so this doesn't affect me directly.

Although I suppose I might be able to contribute advice; that won't
happen on the Lego forum, but it will here.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[rodakay]

On Jul 8, 10:13 pm, AdaMagica <christoph.gr...@eurocopter.com> wrote:
> Why not create a Google group? What's the advantage of having two new
> forums (LinkedIn, #adalego)?

   I guess each kind of forum has slightly different 'dynamics'. An
irc channel can provide a tutorial like forum (for quick/minor/
informal questions). A Linkedin (or other email like) forum can give
more lecture-like style of question/answer (ie to discuss new ideas or
aspects).

   So i suppose my vote would be for one of each.


Regards.

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[Ludovic Brenta]

Rod wrote on comp.lang.ada
>    I guess each kind of forum has slightly different 'dynamics'. An
> irc channel can provide a tutorial like forum (for quick/minor/
> informal questions).  A Linkedin (or other email like) forum can give
> more lecture-like style of question/answer (ie to discuss new ideas or
> aspects).

I don't like IRC; there are too many problems with it.

Since there are no archives and no subject lines, one cannot later
search for an answer.  So I am not inclined to give advice there,
knowing whatever I say will be lost.  Also, newbies are bound to ask
the same question over and over.  The correct answer, of course, is
"search comp.lang.ada" :)

The second problem is that, because it is so informal, people tend not
to think their questions through; it takes several iterations before
we can even understand the question.  The great quality of Ada is that
it forces the programmer to say what they mean, i.e. think twice.
This benefit disappears on IRC.  In contrast, as you can see, people
post meaningful, well-constructed questions here daily.

My conclusion: informal questions belong in a searchable newsgroup and
tutorials should go on a Wiki (perhaps a new chapter about Lego
Mindstorms in the Ada Programming wikibook?)

--
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[rodakay]

On Jul 8, 11:01 pm, Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> wrote:
>
> I don't like IRC; there are too many problems with it.
>
> Since there are no archives and no subject lines, one cannot later
> search for an answer.  So I am not inclined to give advice there,
> knowing whatever I say will be lost.  Also, newbies are bound to ask
> the same question over and over.  The correct answer, of course, is
> "search comp.lang.ada" :)
>
> The second problem is that, because it is so informal, people tend not
> to think their questions through; it takes several iterations before
> we can even understand the question.  The great quality of Ada is that
> it forces the programmer to say what they mean, i.e. think twice.
> This benefit disappears on IRC.  In contrast, as you can see, people
> post meaningful, well-constructed questions here daily.

   I agree. These points show the 'pro's of a formal forum.

   Yet some people also can benefit from the 'hands-on' and rapid irc
atmosphere.

> My conclusion: informal questions belong in a searchable newsgroup and
> tutorials should go on a Wiki (perhaps a new chapter about Lego
> Mindstorms in the Ada Programming wikibook?)

   Some sort of FAQ and Tutorials webpage (Wiki or Wikibook) would be
marvellous.


regards.

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[Pascal Obry]

I agree with Ludovic. IRC channels is far too informal to me.

Also, as a reader of c.l.a I'll be more than happy to follow on going
work on the Lego Mindstorms even if I don't participate. Moving to
another channel will just hide a bit more this Ada side.

My 2 cents.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|    http://www.obry.net  -  http://v2p.fr.eu.org
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver keys.gnupg.net --recv-key F949BD3B

Re: Lego Mindstoms for Ada: user group

[rodakay]

On Jul 9, 6:17 am, Pascal Obry <pas...@obry.net> wrote:
>
> I agree with Ludovic. IRC channels is far too informal to me.

   I think both a formal c.l.a forum and an irc channel would be
ideal. Some questions seem more suited to an informal forum. With one
of each, we might gain the benefits of the lecture/tutorial division,
used in many universities.


> Also, as a reader of c.l.a I'll be more than happy to follow on going
> work on the Lego Mindstorms even if I don't participate. Moving to
> another channel will just hide a bit more this Ada side.

   I'd be very happy with c.l.a as the formal forum.


regards.