Messages

981

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 Customization/Macro Programming Documentation

« on: August 26, 2009, 04:47:12 AM »

poppabear,

I'm not going to participate in public discussions about other members. We are all big boys and can speak for ourselves.

As to your comments about your own impressions, you seem unsure of the intent of my postings. If it had been my intention to 'flame' you, there would be no doubt in your mind.

If one presents a postion in an open forum, then that position is open to debate and may need to be defended.  There is nothing personal in this.

There is a lot of distance between 'you have a bad idea' and 'you are bad for having that idea.' I would apologize for any instance where I implied the latter, as that would never be my intention.

I am a fact hound for the most part, but if I sense my tail being twisted, occasionally I will poke back at a worthy opponent as with my 'interpogated' remarks.  Your reaction may be very different from that of the intended recipient, which is why it is best not to be someone elses spokesperson.

982

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 Customization/Macro Programming Documentation

« on: August 25, 2009, 04:06:04 AM »

SIMPSON DUDE (;-) you are way too easy to get wound up  I am just picking on you, tugging on your leg.

No problemo,  Mr V. 
I 'm not fragile . . . a little tail twisting on occasion enhances the experience.

BUT please be carefull patting yourself on the back you could hurt someone doing it that hard and fast.

VRAY DUDE (;-) I said I did the work, I didn't say if it was any good or not.

Ray is a pretty smart fellow I think he can handle the deal and keep it in perspective for everyone.

I've said it before. Kudos to all of you guys who spend so much time helping others. Even when I disagree with a post, I still appreciate that someone spent valuable time posting in the first place.  This thread got off to a bit of a silly start, but once the debate got up some steam, very useful information was presented. 

983

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 Customization/Macro Programming Documentation

« on: August 24, 2009, 06:00:08 PM »

I am sure i can get it interputated if needed. MAYBE we will get lucky and get pictures.

Please disregard my last post. I found the definition of 'interputated':

Interputated: The process by which a big scary word is simultaneously interpreted and mutilated.

NOW . .  finally . .  I fully understand the whole 'ASSERT' debacle . . . . . a classic case of interputation !   

984

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 Customization/Macro Programming Documentation

« on: August 24, 2009, 05:36:27 PM »

YOUR responce describes EXACTLY why we asked to keep it simple.  IT was a simple request NOT a demand. I am sure i can get it interputated if needed. MAYBE we will get lucky and get pictures.

(;-) TP

I have no idea what you just said . ., perhaps because I do not know what the word 'interputated' means!

Would you mind providing an elaborate layman's definition of that term  . . using no larger than 4 letter words please . . . and make it funny so that I don't get bored. Maybe use it in a couple of example sentences so that I can try to comprehend the context.

Oh yeah, and I like clever anecdotes, so if you wouldn't mind throwing in a few, that would help with my short attention span.

985

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 Customization/Macro Programming Documentation

« on: August 24, 2009, 04:44:11 PM »

simpson36:

   I understand your point, but understand mine, I was NOT critizing the author, he asked for comments I gave him mine.

You are entitled to your opinion, and it is as valid as anyone elses. I just disagree with it, so I presented a different viewpoint, that's all there is to it.

My concern is in seeing the public development of a precedent where someone volunteers to do something that is, and has been, sorely needed and the negative reactions and gimmee gimmees make that person (and others reading the thread) think twice about continuing the effort or starting any other.

It would be logical to assume that since nobody has yet produced the desired 'Mach for Dummies' book, that the comments made thus far are not from the perspective of experience, so let me share something with those who are lobbying for a 'newbies guide to programming'.

I have written many tech manuals as well as several full training curriculum's and a few tutorials. From those experiences, which span many years and several, albeit all technical, topics, I can state confidently that writing a proper tutorial is at lease an order of magnitude more time consuming than writing a technical reference. A proper tutorial requires a test group and feedback and iterations. A manual does not.

To sum up my point: those who are asking that Ray "JUST' write in layman's terms and as close to a tutorial objective as possible . . . . well  . . .you just don't realize what you are asking for. It is a huge undertaking.

In any event, a good reference manual and a good tutorial are like a terminator movie and a chick flic, you just cannot combine certainthings and have either be any good for it's purpose.

As I said earlier, a concise reference manual is needed badly. That is what Ray said he is working on. I do not want to have to wade thru paragraphs of explanations, definitions, laymans terms, humorous analogies and the like, the get the the reference that I need to move on with my programming project.

Tutorials ALWAYS grow out of manuals, NEVER the other way round.

So first things first, and I suspect there is an opening for volunteers to write tutorials . . .  I am not in that line, however.

 

986

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 Customization/Macro Programming Documentation

« on: August 23, 2009, 06:19:51 AM »

It would seem that difficulty understanding the difference between 'assert' and 'activate' is an affliction that also causes confusion between the words 'manual' and 'tutorial'.

It matters little what words an author chooses if the reader is not paying attention to them. The OP clearly says that a person has been drafted to produce a "Programming MANUAL". Granted, that is more than  4 letters, but not exactly difficult to comprehend, in my view.

Nothing is stopping the Little Red Hens from taking a reference manual and using their own 'good authoring skills' to produce a follow on 'Mach Programming for Dummies' book . . .  except perhaps that it requires more effort than simply criticizing someone elses project.

Personally, I want a concise desktop quick reference in the form of "VBscript in a nutshell' from Childs, Lomax and Petrusba. Persons unwilling or unable to learn the proper syntax, structure and logic of a given language are not going to be able to program successfully regardless of whether the documentation is provided in layman or professional form.

Someone mentioned that 90% of this forum is hobbyists. Unfortunately this thread supports that "ASSERTION" . . . oops, sorry for the big word, but 'on' or 'off' just didn't seem adequate . . go figure . . . .

987

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 Customization/Macro Programming Documentation

« on: August 19, 2009, 02:49:39 PM »

"Who will help me bake my bread . . "
- Little Red Hen

988

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 Customization/Macro Programming Documentation

« on: August 19, 2009, 07:14:49 AM »

Since I'm following this thread, I may as well make a nuisance of myself and chime in on this one also.

The difference between 'assert' and 'activate' is very clear in my mind thanks to the description provided and it should be obvious that a clearly defined distinction between the two will prevent many hours of trouble shooting and frustration in writing code for Mach.

I do not find the terms confusing, however, the different definitions do cause a conflict when the two terms are used for the same function. I have to agree that this inconsistency is confusing. When I read it, my first thought was 'typo'.

My vote would be to change the function name to 'AssertAnOutput()' in the interest of continuity and clarity, if the purpose of the function is an 'assertion' as described.

Assuming the big dogs are watching this thread, may I take advantage one again and ask if it is possible to change the Mach setting from 'step/dir' to 'PWM' for spindle control from within a macro. I have looked but not found such a function.

Thanks!

989

General Mach Discussion / Re: Mach3 Customization/Macro Programming Documentation

« on: August 18, 2009, 10:17:50 AM »

HimyKabibble,

I vote to go forward with aliases. If the original 'names' are retained to run legacy code, there is no logical objection.

Just having everything in one place and in some semblance of a similar format will be a huge step in the right direction. I hope you will release something like that as soon as it is assembled.

If you are accepting 'wish list' items, and if it is possible, can M codes be named or have aliases? If not, could a look-up table be created where descriptive names could be used that would then call the numbered macro?

And, although it does not seem like part of your responsibility, I'll just take advantage of the opportunity to throw out some more whining for serial or USB port bidirectional access. 

990

General Mach Discussion / Re: Really need help

« on: August 16, 2009, 08:14:53 AM »

I'm, sorry, but I don't know what you mean... "double iso"  (duh)

double isolation

A common CNC term that describes what happens to husbands who spend too much on their toys