Re: Interface. Gauging interest.

>
> Mike, Gort,
>
> FORTH! Please, no. You don't really want to impose FORTH on CNC

> machinists! It would drive them MAD!
>
> While I recall that back in the '80s it had its followers for

> (telescopes, I seem to recall), it certainly isn't a language for

> user. For a computer linguistics professional, maybe (I will admit

> during the last year I almost considered going and giving it

> No, I didn't get back to it).
>
> Even 'C' is probably more then should be foisted on the average CNC

> BASIC (as mentioned) I suppose should be considered. I added

> commands to a 5K BASIC running on an 8085 in those days.
>
> TurboCNC (and no doubt some commercial controllers) probably

> enough trig and simple control structures (iteration, sequence and
> concatenation) to handle "language" needs.
>
> But if you just want to add high level language constructs to

> just write a C or BASIC (or whatever) program to GENERATE Gcode for

> This has already been done many times. Think of Gcode (or G100) as

> protocol for sending the data to the machine.
>
> Alan KM6VV
>
> >
> > The apropriate way to use FORTH for this type aplication is to

> > new vocabulary that is G code.
> > This would allow direct execution of your G code within FORTH.
> > Just my 2 cents.
> >
> > --- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, Mike Pogue <mpogue@>

> > >
> > > 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

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

> > 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

> > 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

> > >
> > > Mike
>