4 ms·
Copper Robotics creator here: the issue with ROS IMHO is that the architecture is not ideal and if you want your framework to be just ROS compliant you get all
by gbin 2y ago
Copper Robotics creator here: the issue with ROS IMHO is that the architecture is not ideal and if you want your framework to be just ROS compliant you get all the issues the other comments are talking about (wrestling, tuning and so on).
Copper is deterministic by design, data oriented from head to toes (we get 100x less latency than ROS2 out of that), performance tuning can be done algorithmically instead of having to have a developer in the loop and we leverage the awesomeness of cargo to have a sane package management that is familiar to rust developers etc... all those are basically impossible to achieve if we don't call it ROS3 or something :)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- moffkalast 2y agoYeah but can the average postgrad use it to deploy their whatever pytorch thing with ten lines of python? If the answer to that is no, then not much bleeding edge research will ever use it. I'm not a fan of what OSRF has done with ROS 2 personally, but supporting both python and C++ is one of the good bits, even though that support has degraded since ROS 1.
- rcxdude 2y agoCertainly newbie-friendliness is a good attribute (and I'd argue ROS isn't that particularly, even apart from all the bad habits it teaches, there's just a lot of tutorials for it), but it would be nice to have an alternative that's good for professional use, regardless of whether academia uses it.