From: Steve Blackmore .Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 4:48 PM >To: emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net >Subject: Re: [Emc-users] Correct use of subroutines > >On Mon, 13 May 2013 22:50:51 +1000, you wrote: > > >>> Given that it is now mainly a machine-to-machine data standard, the >>> fact that it is archaic, antiquated and poor as a programming language >>> is largely irrelevant. > >True. > >>True, and well expressed, but the LinuxCNC elves have added much needed >>flow-control, looping, and subroutine language elements to LinuxCNC >>gcode, so that it is nearly as good as assembler now. Named variables, >>too, have done a lot for its utility as a hand-wrought language. > >Your LinuxCNC elves are working for a tiny niche market only. Nobody >except programmers seem to think it's necessary. It certainly isn't to >produce a part and all the loops and subroutines in the world don't >machine that part any better or quicker. > >Your never going to persuade thousands of companies or the big players >like Fanuc or Siemens to drop traditional Gcode. It's been tried before >and then, as now, changes were as popular as pox in a brothel. > >Commercially they have too much time, skill and money invested in >something that already works and if it ain't broke there is no need to >fix it. > >Steve Blackmore >--
A program wouldn't have to give up it's ability to understand G code to understand additional instructions. For example a canned routine for drilling doesn't mean the control no longer understands milling instructions. My Anilam control only had 1000 instructions program memory but by using loops it could execute much more than 1000 instructions per press of the start button. As an example, one part I made was cut out in a sheet of Delrin, the size of piece that fit in my vise allowed me to machine 3 rows and 7 columns, 21 pieces. By using nested loops I was able to machine all 21 parts using the code for 1 part repeated in 3 rows and 7 columns. So continuing the same idea, if the program understood it, I could define one part, a turbine blade maybe, and repeat the part multiple times rotated to different positions. When you have so much memory and hard drive space it hardly seems worth writing efficient code, but if you can correct one blade it could correct every blade, versus having to edit the same problem for every different blade. I wish LinuxCNC understood G code plus something like C++ or Basic language. RogerN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AlienVault Unified Security Management (USM) platform delivers complete security visibility with the essential security capabilities. Easily and efficiently configure, manage, and operate all of your security controls from a single console and one unified framework. Download a free trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/alienvault_d2d _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
