Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Interface. Gauging interest.

Yep, I agree. I just mentioned Forth, because it seemed to be a good
fit with motion control, generally. Since g-code dominates right now,
and in many cases it's "under the covers", a language change doesn't
seem very urgent to me.

Some made-up examples to give people a flavor of what this might look like:

g-code: G01 X1.2 Y3.4
Forth: 1.2 3.4 move
C/C++: move(1.2, 3.4);
Basic: move(1.2, 3.4)
grex(?): x1200 y3400

These are all tend to look similar for simple things like "move to here"
or "drill a hole there". Where they differ a lot more is in other areas
like flow control (e.g. "if-then-else", "repeat-until", etc.). Forth is
even weirder for arithmetic, because in that area, it looks more like an
HP RPN calculator.

My experience with g-code tells me that most CNC programmers tend to
avoid flow control, and they tend to just write straight-line code (no
branching, no arithmetic). If this is really true in general, then most
of the programs will look similar in all these languages.

My belief is that it will simplify even further in the long run. I
would like to setup my mill to respond to the File > Print command, like
a printer does. Many (non-tinkerers) don't know (or care) what goes
between a computer and their printer.

(Incidentally, Postscript looks an awful lot like Forth! And, that's
what the laser printer on my desk uses. But, when is the last time you
or anybody you know wrote a program in Postscript? :-)

Mike

Alan Marconett wrote:

> Mike, Gort,
>
> FORTH! Please, no. You don't really want to impose FORTH on CNC users and
> machinists! It would drive them MAD!
>
> While I recall that back in the '80s it had its followers for motion control
> (telescopes, I seem to recall), it certainly isn't a language for the casual
> user. For a computer linguistics professional, maybe (I will admit that
> during the last year I almost considered going and giving it another look.
> No, I didn't get back to it).
>
> Even 'C' is probably more then should be foisted on the average CNC user.
> BASIC (as mentioned) I suppose should be considered. I added simple "ROBOT"
> commands to a 5K BASIC running on an 8085 in those days.
>
> TurboCNC (and no doubt some commercial controllers) probably ALREADY know
> 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 Gcode, why not
> just write a C or BASIC (or whatever) program to GENERATE Gcode for you!
> This has already been done many times. Think of Gcode (or G100) as just a
> protocol for sending the data to the machine.
>
> Alan KM6VV
>
>
>>The apropriate way to use FORTH for this type aplication is to add a
>>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@...> wrote:
>>
>>>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
>
>
>
>
>
> Addresses:
> FAQ: http://www.ktmarketing.com/faq.html
> FILES: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO/files/
> Post Messages: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com
>
> Subscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-owner@yahoogroups.com, wanliker@..., timg@...
> Moderator: pentam@... indigo_red@... davemucha@... [Moderators]
> URL to this group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO
>
> OFF Topic POSTS: General Machining
> If you wish to post on unlimited OT subjects goto: aol://5863:126/rec.crafts.metalworking or go thru Google.com to reach it if you have trouble.
> http://www.metalworking.com/news_servers.html
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jobshophomeshop I consider this to be a sister site to the CCED group, as many of the same members are there, for OT subjects, that are not allowed on the CCED list.
>
> NOTICE: ALL POSTINGS TO THIS GROUP BECOME PUBLIC DOMAIN BY POSTING THEM. DON'T POST IF YOU CAN NOT ACCEPT THIS.....NO EXCEPTIONS........
> bill
> List Mom
> List Owner
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>