Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #52536 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-11 03:47 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-16 12:33 -0800 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 67 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
I'm so conflicted... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 03:47 -0800
I'm so conflicted... foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-11-11 04:37 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-11 05:29 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-11-11 05:33 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-11-11 05:35 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 20:02 -0500
Re: I'm so conflicted... jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-12 10:59 +0000
Re: I'm so conflicted... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 11:21 -0500
Re: I'm so conflicted... jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-12 21:30 +0000
Re: I'm so conflicted... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 23:18 -0500
Re: I'm so conflicted... jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-13 12:28 +0000
Re: I'm so conflicted... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-13 10:50 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-13 19:14 +0000
Re: I'm so conflicted... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 23:11 -0500
Re: I'm so conflicted... jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-14 09:44 +0000
Re: I'm so conflicted... "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2016-11-20 01:51 +0000
Re: I'm so conflicted... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 10:32 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 13:52 -0500
Re: I'm so conflicted... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 11:55 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 23:19 -0500
Re: I'm so conflicted... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 18:16 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 23:14 -0500
Re: I'm so conflicted... jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-11-14 09:51 +0000
Re: I'm so conflicted... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-14 04:04 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 03:11 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2016-11-20 23:50 +0000
Re: I'm so conflicted... albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-12 20:11 +0100
Re: I'm so conflicted... "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-12 00:34 +1100
Re: I'm so conflicted... hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-11 16:19 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 10:34 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... november.nihal@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 12:35 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-12 11:46 -1000
Re: I'm so conflicted... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-12 15:23 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 18:13 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 23:23 -0500
Re: I'm so conflicted... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-12 20:55 -1000
Re: I'm so conflicted... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-12 20:46 -1000
Re: I'm so conflicted... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-13 01:06 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 12:59 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 18:27 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Mikael Nordman <oh2aun@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 20:34 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-13 17:56 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-14 14:53 +1100
Re: I'm so conflicted... "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-11-13 22:04 -1000
Re: I'm so conflicted... albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-13 10:51 +0100
Re: I'm so conflicted... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 03:10 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-11-15 01:03 +1100
Re: I'm so conflicted... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:31 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2016-11-14 13:29 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 03:02 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-15 13:39 +0100
Re: I'm so conflicted... hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-15 18:22 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 01:32 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-16 13:00 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-16 13:04 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 13:42 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 12:28 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 22:14 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 15:01 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 16:55 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 10:36 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 10:43 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-11-20 11:15 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 13:57 -0800
Re: I'm so conflicted... Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-11-28 13:26 -0500
Re: I'm so conflicted... Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2016-11-16 10:25 +0000
Re: I'm so conflicted... hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-16 12:33 -0800
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 10:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <36fdf559-726d-48f1-a15d-c37683ed2d7c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52743 |
No sounds like we're on the same wavelength, it's just that your idea of PLCs is from the 70s ;-) The PLC I used to use (Allen Bradley ControlLogix) had 32 megabytes of RAM. They are capable of millions of instructions per second, and have fully typed languages (booleans,bytes,ints, dint, reals, floats, date-time). Very very sophisticated indeed capable of monitoring many hundreds of IO and talking numerous protocols (including TVP/IP) simultaneously. Most of them these days can be programmed using the IEC61131 standard, which includes ladder, FBD (function block diagrams), sequential function charts (SFC) Instruction List (a very simple assembler type language) and lastly ST (structured text) which is a mind of cross between c and pascal. A modern plc can run multiple programs each written in a different 61131 language. And because the language is standardised once toy can program one type of plc the toy van move to a different platform with ease. Unlike forth where every system is different. My favourite machines are the Siemens S7 range. They've come a long way since the 70s. Unlike Forth ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 10:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <186a6f97-1154-4e08-88f1-0b9b219c1a33@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52771 |
Sorry for the terrible spelling. Tapping on my phone with my 5 year old daughter on my knee! Toy=you. TVP=TCP etc!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 11:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87twb2arom.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #52771 |
Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> writes: > The PLC I used to use (Allen Bradley ControlLogix) had 32 megabytes of > RAM. They are capable of millions of instructions per second, and have > fully typed languages (booleans,bytes,ints, dint, reals, floats,... Interesting -- is that still different from what we would usually call a computer instead of a PLC? I had thought the original PLC's were implemented with relays or simple switching elements and were programmed with ladder logic, which persisted into the microprocessor era because control engineers understood it, it had good verification methods, and it was hard to go wrong because its range was so limited. Once you get away from that, are you not doing just ordinary programming?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 13:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <51bffdd3-9597-4260-965a-39ea28c28d03@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52773 |
All of that is still true. You can still program a PLC in ladder and do quite sophisticated things with it. For example I wrote a printer driver for Epson printers connected via serial port in ladder logic! The thing that is changed most is that you can now select the programming language/method that is most appropriate for the job. Also now it is possible to create library functions (again, in any of the languages) that can be used by other programmers. Much like defining classes in other languages, you define the interfaces, code the implementation and others can use them as black-boxes. I'm currently doing that in the water industry. Coding standard libraries that are tested once and used over and over again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 13:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o1hstg$cuk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #52771 |
On 2016-11-20 1:36 PM, Mark Wills wrote: > No sounds like we're on the same wavelength, it's just that your idea > of PLCs is from the 70s ;-) > > The PLC I used to use (Allen Bradley ControlLogix) had 32 megabytes > of RAM. They are capable of millions of instructions per second, and > have fully typed languages (booleans,bytes,ints, dint, reals, > floats, date-time). Very very sophisticated indeed capable of > monitoring many hundreds of IO and talking numerous protocols > (including TVP/IP) simultaneously. Most of them these days can be > programmed using the IEC61131 standard, which includes ladder, FBD > (function block diagrams), sequential function charts (SFC) > Instruction List (a very simple assembler type language) and lastly > ST (structured text) which is a mind of cross between c and pascal. > A modern plc can run multiple programs each written in a different > 61131 language. And because the language is standardised once toy > can program one type of plc the toy van move to a different platform > with ease. Unlike forth where every system is different. My > favourite machines are the Siemens S7 range. > > They've come a long way since the 70s. Unlike Forth ;-) > IEC61131 has also evolved quite a bit. It is the common core of several advanced languages. IOf you are interested in Mark's comments you might also want to look at IEC61499 (2005) evolved from the work developed in IEC61131. This whole group of standards deals very well with parallel execution environments. A function may be located on the same processor a different processor or a piece of specialized hardware. This is transparent to the application developer. w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 10:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20161116102554.2761c0c2@HP-6550b> |
| In reply to | #52663 |
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:22:04 -0800 (PST) hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > Anyway, my understanding of Python is that it is a scripting > language. You write the actual code in C and then make a > Python wrapper around it for the end user to use. Python source is compiled to byte code. Most commonly the python byte code is executed on a virtual stack machine. What is your definition of understanding? Jan Coombs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 12:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f520f07d-ad26-4896-a6bb-dc7766cd13bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52669 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 3:25:55 AM UTC-7, Jan Coombs wrote: > On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:22:04 -0800 (PST) > hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > > Anyway, my understanding of Python is that it is a scripting > > language. You write the actual code in C and then make a > > Python wrapper around it for the end user to use. > > Python source is compiled to byte code. Most commonly the python > byte code is executed on a virtual stack machine. Everybody knows this --- what is your point? > What is your definition of understanding? Bernd Paysan calls me "stupid" --- you certainly have a funny way of saying the same thing --- what is the point of that?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web