R
The article on state languages that can be accessed in the Languages section of this website has me a little disturbed.
Forgive if I miss the point, but nowhere in the article did I find a point or issue, that state languages handle better that ladder logic. If it is simplification you are after, or better clarity, write your RLL and "encapsulate" it into subroutines....I do it all the time. This insulates those who don't care for the details, and lets them bypass them and look at the general outline.
Lets face it, the details (dirty work) hidden from the state language user has to be dealt with at some point.....state language can't bypass the setup of protocols and servo details any more than any other language. I have found plenty of functionality in RLL and do not find the dreaded function box confusing at all. And anyway, do not most people find a graphical-style language like RLL quicker to understand that a statement list? I can see in a second why a step in my process is being held up. I can program interrupts and and immediate refreshes. And RLL is the very essence of asynchronous control: its not something that had to be added later.
RLL is so flexible it can successfully mimic state-type blocks and sequence-type functions. I guess my opinion is clear, but my main point is I don't see the need to change when no obvious gains are apparent. If it is an issue of flavor of control instead of function, then OK. I do vigorously reserve the right to be wrong, and will listen to thoughtful comments and ideas on this subject.
Forgive if I miss the point, but nowhere in the article did I find a point or issue, that state languages handle better that ladder logic. If it is simplification you are after, or better clarity, write your RLL and "encapsulate" it into subroutines....I do it all the time. This insulates those who don't care for the details, and lets them bypass them and look at the general outline.
Lets face it, the details (dirty work) hidden from the state language user has to be dealt with at some point.....state language can't bypass the setup of protocols and servo details any more than any other language. I have found plenty of functionality in RLL and do not find the dreaded function box confusing at all. And anyway, do not most people find a graphical-style language like RLL quicker to understand that a statement list? I can see in a second why a step in my process is being held up. I can program interrupts and and immediate refreshes. And RLL is the very essence of asynchronous control: its not something that had to be added later.
RLL is so flexible it can successfully mimic state-type blocks and sequence-type functions. I guess my opinion is clear, but my main point is I don't see the need to change when no obvious gains are apparent. If it is an issue of flavor of control instead of function, then OK. I do vigorously reserve the right to be wrong, and will listen to thoughtful comments and ideas on this subject.