Re:Stanford Pupper: low-cost quadruped robot
by rlayton2 on Sunday May 03, 2020 @08:51PM
(#23063312)
It's probably also worth mentioning the project is a work in progress, and from the videos, it looks like OpenDog is likely to undergo at least one more major change before "completion".
For future reference, I saw "OpenDog" and thought we were discussing James Bruton's (XRobots) OpenDog/Mini-Dog, which is where the firmware I linked above comes from.
NanoDog is something different, apparently! Sorry for any confusion I might've caused there.
Re:Stanford Pupper: low-cost quadruped robot
by monocasa on Sunday May 03, 2020 @02:44PM
(#23060981)
Oh wow, you're not joking. I'm getting flashbacks to when I supported a team of EEs.
Hell, I'm getting flashbacks to my own code in EE lab. Except this stuff looks way less messy, not nearly enough random assembly declarations to bludgeon a register or pin into submission.
Re:Stanford Pupper: low-cost quadruped robot
by t_von_doom on Monday May 04, 2020 @01:20AM
(#23064808)
As someone who also isn't a SWE first, what are the changes you'd make and where can one learn to code in a more SWE way?
The code's a bit of a mess -- James is clearly not a software engineer first. This is totally understandable, given that he does so many other things!
When I first saw the code, I thought about doing a refactoring pass and making a pull request. It would be painful to test correctness without the hardware, and I don't want to make things worse, so I haven't.