Re: Updated dataflow semantics for RTT

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:

>> But I do not agree with the analysis that RTT is the best thing to hide
>> computations: I have seen way too many control loops implemented with one
>> single Orocos component (and activity) per block in a Simulink-like data
>> flow... Way too many.
>
> Like ... iTasc ?

For example.

> Unless you make a system too constrained to be actually useful, there
> will always be room to misuse it. That does not spell that the system
> itself is bad, only that "best practices" suck (or are inexistent).

Agreed. Hence my comment that improving this situation is a very useful and
never-ending goal of the Orocos project :-)

> This is a neverending fight, but IMO the solution is education, not
> some horrible model-based environment too complex to every be used.

Which is exactly what RTT has become... I have met no-one the last couple
of years who "got it" when starting to use Orocos, and very few of them
changed their "legacy" to better practice designs...

> Sylvain

Herman
-- 
Orocos-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev