3 ms·
Been 10 years in and around the robotics industry and I'd recommend exactly the opposite. I've assisted companies refuse to work with anything touching ROS. Mos
by snovv_crash 2y ago
Been 10 years in and around the robotics industry and I'd recommend exactly the opposite. I've assisted companies refuse to work with anything touching ROS. Most successful things I've seen in production that are with ROS use a large non-ROS core with a thin ROS layer on top for compatibility. Companies that do use ROS have needed several times the resources of those that don't, to achieve the same thing.
Usually people get stuck with ROS in commercial environments either because they inherited it from an academic project (company is a spinoff), or they used ROS for a demo and afterwards never planned with long enough roadmaps to make the cost benefit analysis obvious enough.
- jvanderbot 2y agoOk, I've been 10 years in it as well, if that's important. There's simply no reason to skip ROS as a student. My advice was not for businesses, whatsoever. And every single ROS replacement I've seen is ROS-like enough that the language ROS defined for all of us is effectively lingua franca. But the antibodies that are triggered by even mentioning ROS should tell anyone how much it is not a fun thing to learn or work with. But it is a common touchpoint. It's really hard to understand _nearly any_ design decision in robotics software without first understanding why it isn't ROS.
- snovv_crash 2y agoI'd rather take a student who put the same effort into building stuff with OpenCV, Eigen or Simulink though. ROS teaches a bunch of bad architecture habits that need to be unlearned, and which many fail to unlearn. People can understand it's bad but then they still build a framework and a distributed system full of async calls to try to replace it, for example.