Re: [RE: emc really needs a copyleft cad/cam package]

[Anne Ogborn <anniepoo-at-netmagic.net>]

Ray wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Anne wrote:
> > Comments about user interface and the copyleft cad/cam package -
> <S>
> > I suspect we are trying to attach ourselves to the emc process. That's probably inappropriate,
> > since emc is far along in the process. We need to start at the beginning with this one.
> 
> Anne
> 
> As much of an EMC lover as I am, I have to agree with you here.  There are
> much wider applications for an open source CAM system than EMC.  But I
> would want it to be able to produce RS274 code that can directly run on
> an EMC based machine controller.  But this could be done either with a
> config option or an inline postprocessor.

I didn't mean to question the relationship of a CAM package with emc, I meant that
somebody, sometime, decided in a rational manner what emc was to be and set up a 
process to get from "let's make an opensource controller" to code.

I'm saying that if we start on another application, a CAD/CAM package, we 
cannot assume that we don't have to do any design.

As programmers our natural inclination is to write code, not documents. 
This instinct is dangerous.

If you all are committed to a process of "well, won't get written by sitting on our
hands - lets cut code" count me out. In the 24 years I've been writing software I've
seen every project that started that way fail, and most that started with a design
succeed.

Your comments are a classic example of why designing first works.
You want it to produce RS274. I want it to produce the peculiar variant of HPGL
that my Roland Modela takes. Probably there are controllers out there that take
various variations on each. This is a clear place for a plug-in architecture.
The Roland uses windoze based software and looks like a printer. emc runs on rtlinux
and looks like a filter.