[C.CC USERS] wiring.module Question
bringfire at gmail.com
Thu Oct 27 01:36:23 BST 2011
Great! I just downloaded the new book, and the section on analogRead and
serial communications look clear to the initial scan...I will work through
the code and ask more questions as they arise.
I have experience working with LaTEX and am grateful for the GitHub link to
the source for the book. I will continue to work on the projects I have
lined up using the process-oriented programming techniques and hopefully I
can eventually help to make direct contributions to the code and text of the
book. (Perhaps a ways off.)
I expect that I will have more than a few questions in the near future,
especially in regards to hardware interface and syntax...so, thanks for all
of the excellent info. The zip file of books looks like an excellent
resource for getting a handle on the basics and beyond.
I will use Fritzing to visually document any circuits I build and will
gladly share them and all code as I proceed.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Matt Jadud <matt at jadud.com> wrote:
> Hi Aaron,
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 17:33, Aaron Ryan <bringfire at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the zip file and the heads up about the wiring.module and its
> > tendency to foster a procedural rather than parallel mode of thinking
> > Occam-Pi. My first question then, is how to go about reading and
> > analog values using the Transterpreter. The code for reading which you
> > provided is a good start
> Although we haven't really discussed it, I've made some changes to
> ``the book.'' By "changes" I mean "I left everything as-is, but
> created a new outline that doesn't contain any of the old material."
> Instead, I've started looking at the Arduino Cookbook, and am going to
> write material that (roughly/mostly) follows that outline. This will,
> I think, be useful in several ways:
> 1. It will help my students. They're going to be diving into occam-pi
> on the Arduino, and they're already experienced with both Java and
> Scheme. They don't need me to walk through syntax in great detail, but
> they do need to know how to ``do stuff.'' The cookbook will work for
> them in this regard.
> 2. I've had a question or two off list from people who don't know how
> to proceed from the book as it stands---it doesn't get very far. This
> is especially the case with people who have prior programming
> experience and/or experience with the Arduino. In this regard, they're
> like my students.
> 3. It isn't a good framework for documenting answers to questions like
> you just asked. It's a simple question... but I couldn't add it to the
> book ``as was.'' It would require chapter after chapter of lead-in
> before I would get to the point that I could (naturally) answer your
> question in context. A cookbook allows me to throw it in where it
> makes sense, and move on.
> Some of this could be addressed by improving our WWW infrastructure
> (so it was easier to write this kind of content quickly, and have it
> typeset reasonably correctly without it being a pain). However, I
> can't solve that quickly, but I can work with the LaTeX I already have
> in GitHub.
> So, try this:
> This is the start of a cookbook. It has some text I started earlier
> today on basic bits of the language (which is rough stuff), and I went
> ahead and jumped ahead to fill in an answer to your question. If it is
> adequate, good. If it isn't, ask more questions: it can become another
> "chapter" in the cookbook.
> The source for the book remains in GitHub
> If everything is happy on your system, you might be able to just do a
> 'make'. However, it's a bit wonky.
> Thoughts/pushback on this are welcome. Dave, you had wondered about
> contributing to documentation: this seems like a much better way to
> get people involved, as it no longer requires an understanding of a
> ``text'' with a narrative arch. Now, you can add in sections/chapters
> as you see fit. If there's anything that you'd like to write, just
> claim it.
> I might break the cookbook out into a new repository (as it is
> different from the book-that-was), but probably not for a day or two.
> I'd mostly appreciate thoughts/feedback at this stage.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the users