Hi Ballendo,

I see you are quite enthusiastic about APT. Or any other smart language,
for that matter.

APT is much more advanced and powerful than what I was talking about.
in my original post, yet it still seems natural, because it is like plain
English.
It looks like it was invented by somebody who didn't know about G-code, but
who was very knowledgeable in machining and CAD.

It just needs a better accessibility to the general public, maybe by having
controllers that accept this language. It would also benefit from being
"standardized" before it transforms into a multitude of flavors like G-code.
That would be the job of an international CNC machining organization I
suppose. Is there such a thing already in the world? I suppose yes.

What are your thoughts regarding the implementation of APT at OUR level? As
we don't have the smart controllers yet, I suppose it would be the first
step ?

It would also be interesting to read opinions of people already using it.

Thanks

Guy


-----Original Message-----
From: ballendo [mailto:ballendo@...]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:07 AM
To: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: G-code---for the new millenium


Guy,

Good to see you haven't given up. APT is a "C" of machine control.
A "portable" language. That is what it was designed to be.

Some thoughts in response to the ORIGINAL thrust of this thread, as
understood by me:

APT is designed to be used with post-processors to "port" it to the
various machines. But what if the "post processor" became PART of the
CONTROL? Instead of part of the CAD/CAM, where it has been
traditionally? A paradigm shift to be sure, but one whose time is
possible, at least technically. This is what got me excited about
your quest, and prompted my comments about APT in the first place.
(Others had already mentioned it)

There is going to be strong opposition to this, as many people make
LOADS of money supporting and writing these "POSTS" (post-processor
writing and support has been a staple of CAM software income for
years.
(I EVEN had one CAM industry person tell me that he didn't want to
contribute his "considerable" information to the general knowledge of
gcode variations between different controls, as this would result in
his making less money accomodating the differences.)

We're at the point where the CONTROL can become "smarter", so its
input can be made "dumber" (man readable, as you first suggested).

A similar possibility existed in the PC programming world several
years back. It "would have been" possible to make the compilers (the
equivalent of our cnc controls) smarter, so that the Source code
(input by the programmer) could be simpler. But alas, C took over,
with its' IMO obtuse(hard to understand) syntax. So now, the
programming tools have gone "visual", making it easier to implement,
but the language is still obtuse. We "could have had" a layman-
understandable native code, like BASIC or even Pascal. Or even
something simpler, allowing more people to become programmers.
Instead we have preserved the "white coat status" of programming,
tho' the new tools DO make it easier for newbies.

So the same thing in CNC: We have traditionally used
relatively "dumb" controls. And we "feed" them the output
from "smart" CAM programs...

So again I ask, "What if the control were made smarter so that the
language used to feed the control became understandable and
immediately accessible to MANY more people?" Isn't this what your
message originally wished for?

Having APT, or something like it, as the NATIVE language of the CNC
control would promote this. As you say below, you "could almost see
the toolpath..." Admittedly, so can experienced gcode users, but you
have to look a lot more gcode, since its notation refers to a lower
level (like looking at source for assembly, when compared to looking
at BASIC, or Pascal, or C/C++ source)

We're doing a "version" of this already. EMC, like most modern
controls, includes expression evaluation. Other controls, like HAAS,
include "conversational" programming. The controls ARE getting
smarter. But like the "C++" compilers which still use "C's" "need to
be trained first to even have an IDEA what you are looking at"
syntax, the cnc controls are sticking with the similarly
obtuse "baggage" of gcode, instead of using something higher level,
like APT. Which WOULD be a better way to proceed. We now "count on"
the CAD/CAM; what if we instead "counted on" the cnc control? Move
the "smarts" down a level.

APT can be, and has been, made visual. It's just a language; its
implementation is up to the programmer using it. And that programmer
could make a windows interface, if one doesn't exist already in an
inexpensive version.

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.

Ballendo

P.S. For those who are not programmers, "C" and "C++, pronounced SEE
and SEE-plus-plus, are the primary programming languages for most
professional computer programmers today. EMC is written in "C". BUT
BASIC (a simpler to immediately understand programming language) is
STILL the most "popular" programming language.
I will explain the other programming terms used in my message above
to anyone who cares to send me an offlist message.