andy pugh wrote: > On 7 April 2011 01:54, Michael Haberler <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> ps: I am aware the same effect can be had by using global variables but then >> languages have moved on. >> > > Is G-code a programming language? > > I think it is with the O-words, but not without. And as far as I know > (which isn't very far) EMC2 G-code is the only dialect that uses them. > > I wonder what we would end up with if we were designing a machine > control language from scratch today? I suspect it wouldn't be StepNC > which looks like even more of a dead end than G-code to me. > Unfortunately, it might look like C with some kind of function call to move the machine! Or, maybe, something like Python? G-code was all developed for machining with paper tape programs on tape-NC machines, so all the fancy stuff (tool radius offsets, interpolation, variables, etc.) were not envisioned then. Subroutines were often on a different paper tape on a different tape reader.
Many other CNC controls have a subroutine scheme, which may be much more primitive than EMC's, or pretty similar in capabilities. Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Xperia(TM) PLAY It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming smartphone on the nation's most reliable network. And it wants your games. http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
