On 02/19/2012 10:29 AM, Stuart Stevenson wrote: > Gentlemen, > I hope my comments on this subject were not understood as discouraging > the development of the 'language'. I am in favor of any and all exploration > directions. > My thoughts were expressed as an example of the worst case scenario. If > some type of verification of the calculated code is not a consideration > then people will surely have miscut parts. The first accused culprit of a > miscut part is the programmer. The programmer then points at the operator. > This finger pointing escalates to tooling, the 'other' shift, planning, the > machine, ad naseum, until the real culprit is found. A proven g code > program is never the culprit. Adding a possibility of the program will not > be interesting or fun. > Admittedly, this would be a rare occurrence but you can be assured the > first instance will happen on the most expensive part possible and take the > longest to find and cost the most to fix. > thanks > Stuart > Stuart,
In my shop, those fingers all point to me... ;-) Mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Try before you buy = See our experts in action! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2 _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
