Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] G-code---for the new millenium

Guy Sirois wrote:

> I am thinking (dreaming) out loud here but here goes anyway.
>
> Like most people learning Gcode for the first time, I have some problems
> remembering the code number for each action.
> As there was recently a thread on "variations" of Gcode (I saw that in the
> archives) I was wondering if it would be feasible to give to our
> interpreting software, the ability to read text commands and/or Gcode.
>
> My main area of work is in electronics (not computers) and many systems are
> now controlled by microcontrollers. Their language is usually very intuitive
> with commands like
> LSL for Logical Shift Left
> CPI for Compare with Immediate
> SER for Set bits in Register
> CLR for Clear Register
> etc... you get the idea.
>
> I was thinking about implementing alternative text commands to Gcode that
> would be equally well interpreted by the software receiving it (machine
> controller). The commands would be 3 or 4 letter words with an intuitive
> meaning to them. It would not take longer to write the code manually, but
> would allow a listing that is much more "readable" by humans. It would also
> allow someone not quite familiar with code to quickly see the tool path in
> the file.
>
> For example, let's imagine...
> RAP for G00 Rapid positioning
> LIN for G01 Linear interpolation
> ACW for G02 Circular interpolation Clockwise (arcs)
> ACCW for G03 circular interpolation counter-clockwise
> CCCW for G13 Circle counter-clockwise
> XYP for G17 X-Y plane designation
> RADL for G41 cutter radius compensation to the left
> DRL for G83 hole drilling
> ABS for absolute programming mode
> FEED feed rate
> LOOP for loop the program
> DWL for dwell
> RPM for (what else) RPM
> END for end program
> etc...
>
> Shouldn't involve big software changes in the machine controller programs
> IMHO. If the line doesn't begin with a G## , then check the comparison table
> to find a matching command and process it as Gcode for the rest of the
> processing.
>
> Same for the Gcode generators, where there could be an option in the menu to
> select G-code output or T-code (for Text code) or whatever.
>
> The end result of this could be to render CNC code more attractive to
> everybody without any drawbacks (that I can see now). The important thing is
> to make the code intuitive. I do not mean this to be a replacement to Gcode,
> it is merely an alternative syntax.
>
> Once it has become a feature of the most popular programs we use, and people
> use it, it can only become more popular with time and, maybe, be part of the
> new "standard" for modern CNC code.
>
> When Gcode was invented during the fifties, the "computers" probably
> couldn't deal with text commands, so maybe that's the reason we are "stuck"
> with the numbers.
>
> Oh ! Time to wake-up.
> Was this a bad dream or not ?

Before you spend any more time on this, you might want to check out
web references to APT. Although APT did more than just the standard
G-code type operations, it was very much like what you are talking
about. This is ancient stuff, from the 1960s.

Jon