[Dprglist] Ballistic Behaviours [Was: First BBR implementation and some questions]

Murray Altheim murray18 at altheim.com
Mon Nov 1 00:05:34 PDT 2021

My apologies for starting a new thread. There were I now realise over
a dozen more messages and the subsequent/additional discussion of
ballistic behaviours by both Karim and David that I hadn't read (yet).

On 1/11/21 7:57 pm, Murray Altheim via DPRGlist wrote:
> On 1/11/21 11:26 am, Karim Virani via DPRGlist wrote:
> [...]
>> And not to start up the whole debate again, I personally vote that
>> there is no use for ballistic behaviors. I treat them as an academic
>> construct. There are plenty of uses of objective-oriented and terminating behaviors - including those where the objective is to last for a certain amount of time. But they should still be interruptible and cancellable by higher priority 
>> behaviors.
> Hi Karim,
> I have no particular interest in having a debate either, but I'm
> likewise not really convinced anyone was actually disagreeing with
> each other so much as except in the choice of terminology, perhaps
> due to a lack of ready alternatives or the existence of ambiguous
> or poor existing definitions. I.e., I tend to think our disagreements
> might have been simply in terminology or communications, not so much
> in what we are trying to accomplish.
> For example, I've never promoted the idea of a "ballistic behaviour"
> on my robot that wasn't interruptible by a higher-priority behaviour,
> as that seems rather foolish. If I am backing up in a "ballistic"
> fashion and either my back bumper hits something, or my battery
> sensor says the robot must shut down, or my house-on-fire sensor says
> to abort, well, abort. I used "ballistic" because I don't know what
> else to call this.
> What we've not really had was a good term for this interruptible
> ballistic-like behaviour. You seemed to allude to an "object-oriented
> and terminating behaviour" as this thing we have no name for. We seem
> to have a reasonable definition of "servo" but not "ballistic", apart
> from the early one that nobody seems to either advocate or use (much).
> I'd be happy continuing to call it a _Ballistic_Behaviour_ if we were
> to henceforth define them as "something like a bullet but unlike a
> bullet because interruptible" but would be happy to entertain any
> alternatives. Certaintly shorter and clearer alternatives...
> Or, if I'm barking up the wrong tree (or just barking), please let
> me know. I'm simply searching for some better terminology for what I
> *believe* we're all trying to accomplish but in different ways, i.e.,
> different approaches and implementations for what is still some kind
> of prioritised behaviour-based robotic system.
> Cheers,
> Murray
Murray Altheim <murray18 at altheim dot com>                       = =  ===
http://www.altheim.com/murray/                                     ===  ===
                                                                    = =  ===
     In the evening
     The rice leaves in the garden
     Rustle in the autumn wind
     That blows through my reed hut.
            -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu

More information about the DPRGlist mailing list