On 8/12/2012 2:13 PM, Chris Morley wrote: > > >> Dave, right now users of LinuxCNC are mostly insulated from raw HAL >> editing by stepconf and pncconf. >> same wizards may be extended to write scripted components. With >> current declarative HAL and compilable comp it becomes >> too complicated. For example, ATC components mentioned yesterday are >> not generic enough to be used as is, and are not included in >> distribution. >> LinuxCNC is a free download, and fights against 100-200-500USD+ >> packages, and fails to get users. >> If our goal was to enable our own machines, we succeeded, time to go >> home. If we want to have best controller, we have work to do. >> EMC was designed with 40-100 Mhz processors in mind, now we have >> several cores with 2+GHz, please check you suspicions before >> you spread FUD. Scriptable components/HAL need not be top performance >> for 40m/min sub-micron machines, they need to be easy for >> hobbyists to enable their machine. For former one should find the time >> to optimize things, but we should not require the same from everyone. >> >>> Why do you think that adding a scripting language like Lua to the hal layer >>> would be desirable? >>> >> Let me ask you back... Why AXIS GUI is written in Tcl/Tk/Python/C/C++ >> mix, it will be much faster if written with only C/C++, right? >> >> > Alex > > I would think some of the reason we are not as popular is that we don't > market ourselves. > Some of it as you said is linuxcnc is more difficult to set up - our saving > grace is our flexibility > and openness. > Another reason is we tend not to cater to what doesn't really matter to > machine control. > eg fully customizable screens. > and also we are developed by people who tend to be engineers first machinists > second. > ( don't get upset guys it's not a poke ) > We are moving towards making things easier. It is much easier to build a > screen (not just a panel) > now with gladeVCP. > > Anyways back to what we were talking about. > Alex would you describe classicladder as a graphical representation of a > scriptable component? > Could we not build a component that does the same thing in your language of > choice? > then you would connect (through HAL) the basic in and out pins and your > scriptable component > could do what ever you like. > I wonder what language is so common or so easy that Joe consumer would not > have the same complaints. > > > PS > I have no problem looking at MACH for ideas. MACH is not evil. Mach has been > good for the cnc > industry. We have different ideas and goals. If we were trying to make money > you would see our > goals change quite a bit. > I looked a VFD control on MACH briefly. It seems they have a generic modbus > driver and also specific > drivers for VDFs. I may try my hand at making a general modbus component. > > Chris M > >
I'd like to echo Chris' point and add to it: >>I wonder what language is so common or so easy that Joe consumer would not >>have the same complaints.<< Ladder Logic is by far the most popular programming language in the industrial controls business for end users. Yet few hobbyist attempt to use it from what I have seen. They see it as foreign. I've been programming in ladder since Allen Bradley had their first programming courses in the mid 70's. I think the quest for a language that is common and acceptable to hobbyist is a good thing. But we need to remember that we are programmers. I deal with non-programmers all of the time via my customers. And when you start throwing out things like this: >> (or for the logic component) toggle = toggle ^ 1 enable = toggle& (divot | quit) << They are lost! A casual hobbyist who just wants to machine stuff doesn't want a programming language, they want a screen with buttons to check to configure LinuxCNC - ala Mach3. Or they want a wizard - ala Step Config. A "serious" hobbyist will dive into the technology and work at it until they understand it. Hal as it is now, is entirely understandable, as is the ladder logic editor. I really don't see how the existing tools that are available are preventing a "serious hobbyist" from using LinuxCNC. Sure, I would welcome any additions like a Lua scripter to hal, but before someone goes to all of that work I think you need to ask yourself, "why hasn't Classic Ladder been more widely used?". There is no reason why Classic Ladder could not be used to implement a complex tool changer. It works! Mach3 is definitely not evil. :-) I have used it on a couple of commercial installations - so I am actually a Mach3 customer and I still follow its development. We can learn a lot from Mach3 and why it is popular with hobbyists. But reading the Mach3 email list on a daily basis, I can tell you that the people who implement LinuxCNC are typically a different crowd than the Mach3 user group. There are a lot of Mach3 users who don't know what VB is, and never will, and simply don't care. There are many Mach3 users that need help finding the proper button to push on the configuration screen. Many buy the software, parts and pieces, ask a lot of questions, and many never complete their projects. No scripting language of any kind is going to help such a hobbyist. All I am saying is that before a solution is formulated, the problem should be understood. :-) Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
