Re: Interface. Gauging interest.

Jack,

Mach3 already has what you're talking about...

The cypress VB script interpreter, with Art's installed calls for
nearly everything Mach is capable of doing...

You can have what you're talking about right now at
www.machsupport.com

You can have just about any look and feel you want right now too.

I only wish there were a DeskCNC level USB device FOR Mach. When
you're selling 1000 buck machines, a 400 buck black box that does
FAR more than you need is seen as excessive by potential customers.
And also by my accountant.<G>

Ballendo

--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Hudler" <yahoo@...>
wrote:

>
> I as I said the new interpreter should be able to handle G-Code

directly and

> Scripts activated like canned cycles using a different name

Snnnnnnn [0..n].

> Plus the ability to go into completely script mode.
>
> I'm not going to say if you build it they will all come; if we

don't then it's

> just the status quo.
>
> You would certainly want to pin it down on a specific script

interpreter. I'm

> not a fan of Basic, but it does have its strengths to help early

learned

> adopters. I will tell you that describing a part in an object

oriented way, from

> my point of view is exhilarating. However, it's a paradigm shift

that many won't

> care about.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com]

> On Behalf Of Mike Pogue
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:13 AM
> To: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Interface. Gauging interest.
>
> I've been thinking about this.... There's a language that was

built for

> exactly this kind of machine control thing: Forth. It's tiny,
> extensible, and fast. It's mature. It's designed for machine

control.

>
> But, the world operates on g-code nowadays, so it's not clear to

me that

> a language switch makes sense at this point in time. Here's why --

a

> new language could certainly be done (fairly easily), but would

anybody

> use it? You and I would, but how about all the other vendors out

there?

> It would require new drivers (post processors) for CAM software.

And,

> new training for 1000's of operators.
>
> So, the benefits of a new language (whatever syntax you choose)

would

> have to be large/compelling, to overcome the disadvantages, I

think.

>
> Mike
>