Re:Robot Operating System – A flexible framework for writing...
by rcxdude on Thursday September 06, 2018 @06:45AM
(#17925247)
Yeah, ROS is a very good example of worse being the enemy of good (to mangle some sayings). It's a common framework which does basically everything you'd want to do in a robotic system, with a bunch of useful functionality on top of it, but basically every part of it is incomplete, poorly documented, awkwardly designed, and buggy. However, since there's basically nothing else which addresses the same space, people feel compelled to use it. I know of two robotics projects, one with a pretty substantial budget, which have been basically hamstrung by developing initially on ROS and running headlong into its limitations while being unable or unwilling to pay the cost of moving off of it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Robot Operating System – A flexible framework for writing...
by TeMPOraL on Thursday September 06, 2018 @08:14AM
(#17925655)
So basically, ROS is the UNIX of robotics (i.e. "worse is better", + judging by how many serious projects using it are mentioned elsewhere in this comment thread)?
Re:Robot Operating System – A flexible framework for writing...
by rcxdude on Thursday September 06, 2018 @09:03AM
(#17925915)
Kind of. Fundamentally, it has never had much competition due to the narrowness of the scope. It is ubiquitous in university robotics due to its accessibility, but in my experience most (successful) industrial robotics applications will simply provide an interface to ROS: internally they will not use it at all.
One thing with ROS is that reimplementing it is not particularly difficult: I have, for various reasons and projects (in some cases before ROS was available) implemented basically all the core components of it (to similar levels of completeness and reliability). So the cost of doing it yourself is actually not all that high (and I think people overestimate it).