On 12 May 2013 20:21, Rafael Skodlar <ra...@linwin.com> wrote: >> I think that you might be mistaking G-code for a programming language… > > It is a programing language.
Maybe I was a bit too flippant. G-code is as much a programming language as assembler is. In fact you can probably argue that G-code is a bit closer to machine code than assembler, in that assembler is a human-readable transliteration of machine code, whereas G-code is not even designed to be human-legible. I am not sure that Assembler is technically a programming "language". I would say it is "the program" I realise that many people can read G-code fluently, but then I used to be able to read Z80 machine code (in hex). I would argue that G-code is now mainly the output of CAM "compilers". Just because it is possible to compose it by hand (And that is mainly what I do) doesn't mean that that is the way that it is currently used by most users. Given that it is now mainly a machine-to-machine data standard, the fact that it is archaic, antiquated and poor as a programming language is largely irrelevant. -- atp If you can't fix it, you don't own it. http://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their applications. This 200-page book is written by three acclaimed leaders in the field. The early access version is available now. Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/neotech_d2d_may _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
