Re: Why is a Gcode standard important???

Brian,

Obviously I don't agree with you on this.

To say that the Gcode standard is currently ineffective is not the
same as saying it cannot be made effective...

And in any evolving technology, the "standard" WILL ALWAYS be a
moving target. Does this mean we should only try to "shoot" at things
that are standing still? Or throw our hands up in the air and
say, "It's too hard! Why try?"

The fact is that standards DO get created/updated and USED in many
walks of life; and they work well, minimising "barriers" to entry in
fields as diverse as the human potential allows...

The typing I am doing now will be shared with you through the
application of several standards; ASCII (the letters on the screen),
SMTP(the email protocol, TCIP(the internet protocol), and the OS of
your computer, which is ITSELF a standard, and must CORRECTLY
IMPLEMENT those "other" standards listed above for you to see these
words...

Hope this helps.

Ballendo

P.S. The standard was last "updated" in 1981. Since NC began in the
50's, and CNC after that, at best it was tried for 30 years. Also,
agood standard WILL have "holes" to allow for progress. What I am
saying is that we have had the progress and it is time to set it down
to "code". Lots of other contentious industries have done this, since
it is well known that a GOOD standard helps immensely. It is true
that a "young" standard may bear little similarity to the "mature"
standard in the same field. Standards are roadmaps, sometimes with
dotted lines for "freeways" that never get built... Salesmen update
their maps often. When will we update our Gcode map?

Or shall we just keep the confusion in place? Making your words true
in another 50 years?

--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., Brian Pitt <bfp@e...> wrote:
>
> well the cold hard fact is that the so called "standard" isn't worth
> the paper its printed on and it does not matter even one little bit.
>
> there is not and has never been a machine control that used
> this "PURE" standard in the first place ,the document itself is
> full of loopholes and leaves so much up to the control builder
> that no one can guess what the "real standard" should be anyway
> all in all thats not much of a standard after FIFTY YEARS of
trying ;-)
>
> Brian