re:Smart box / Dumb box

Wally K wrote:

>I agree with you <Mariss> on the dumb box. It seems to me the
>people who want the smart box are programmers who want to write
>their own routines to talk to the box and do not want to use a cam
>program.<snip>I still say start simple.

Wally,

I agree with the start simple part. However, BOTH the smart and the
dumb box require the SAME efforts, just differently applied.

The smart box will make it easier to "write" a CNC control, since you
can talk to it in "high level" language like 'arc from here to there,
at this radius'. So the programming (in the PC) is easier since the
messy motion stuff is handled by the box... BUT, SOMEONE still needs
to write that 'messy motion stuff'!!!

The dumb box will make it easier to "write" a CNC control, since you
will be relieved of the timing issues which currently eat up a lot of
time and processing power. You will still have to write the messy
motion stuff, but you'll be doing it on a FAST pc... And you'll have
TOTAL control of the output.

By way of analogy, parts of this thread discussion parallels the MS
windows deployment process. We start with the 'dumb box', called DOS.

A bunch of people were doing it in DOS, writing EVERYTHING themselves
(printer drivers,screen layouts,etc). Along comes Mr. Bill G, who
sez, Hey! You don't have to do all that extra work! WE'LL WRITE THE
MESSY STUFF FOR YOU! All YOU have to do is follow our structure...

Now to a tired programmer trying to keep up with yet another newly
introduced printer (writing driver after driver) this sounded pretty
good. "You mean YOU'LL write the printer drivers, and ALL we have to
do is Call your code?"

"Yep", sez Mr. Bill G.

<this is the 'smart' box approach. Sounds good so far...>

So people started using the "windoze API" (black box) provided by Mr.
Bill G. And pretty soon they noticed that it wasn't always so easy
to talk to Mr. Bill G's code... And it seemed that things were
slower, or didn't do just what they wanted, or was more unstable (in
some cases) than the code they had written before. But it sure was
nice not to have to write those darn printer drivers every few
days... And Mr. Bill G assured the people that this is just
a 'learning curve' and ALL the bugs will be fixed b4 you know it.

<Of course they weren't all fixed, and that's the down side to
the 'smart' box...>

The down side of the "dumb box" is that essentially everyone will
have to write the "drivers" for the dumb box, unless these drivers
become PART of the dumb box implementation. This is also the up side
to the dumb box... You can do what you want, how you want, but you
WILL have to do more... Again, UNLESS the basic routines to drive
the 'dumb box' are part and parcel of its' implementation.

Hope this helps.

Ballendo