On 13.05.13 12:51, andy pugh wrote: > 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.
You just forgot the :^) or ;-), Andy. (Though the ironic tone was loud and clear here.) > G-code is as much a programming language as assembler is. Nooo, much less, as you successfully argued in the next sentence: > 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" That first has to be challenged, since assembler is a human-readable representation, not the executable binary ... but yes, it is just a representation, with essentially identical constructs and grammar (though differently expressed). However, is not "the program", even in binary form, an expression in a "language" which the CPU's instruction decoder can interpret, i.e. "understand? And, hold it, we have lost symbolic addressing in the binary. Even if gcode is too low to qualify in your book, the increased meaningfulness of variable and function names give significant linguistic quality to "assembly language". ... And on gcode: > 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. True, and well expressed, but the LinuxCNC elves have added much needed flow-control, looping, and subroutine language elements to LinuxCNC gcode, so that it is nearly as good as assembler now. Named variables, too, have done a lot for its utility as a hand-wrought language. It is nearly winter here now. Maybe it is time to revisit the human-readable gcode translator we had a bit of discussion on, last time dissatisfaction with gcode welled up. Erik -- ... and to avoid the tedious repetition of these woordes 'is equal to' I will sett, as I doe often in woorke use, a paire of parralelles or twin lines of one length, thus = bicause no 2 things can be moare equal. - Robert Recorde, writing in 1557 (quoted by Tubal Cain, in ME No. 4042) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
