No need to talk in code

So why would anyone, apart from academics or computer nerds, need to know anything at all about MS-DOS? Who cares that MS-DOS required the user to input 'CD\' to get into the root directory and then 'CD\directory name' to find a list of files, and so on and so forth. It is, quite simply, no longer relevant for a time when a click of the mouse brings the 'My computer' icon to the screen and everything flows from there. Which leads to me ask a related question: why, given a similar pace of development in the conversational programming of machine tools, are students still being taught G and M codes? Many CNCs use these codes in the background (G codes tell the machine what type of action to perform, while M codes relate to a specific machine function), but they don't need to appear at the interface where the operator can now program using plain English commands. Think about the Sat Nav system in your car. You don't need to know how it works, you just need to touch the appropriate icons and input the requested information. The reasons for continuing to teach G and M codes, according to college lecturers I have spoken to, are that (a) these codes are an integral part of the National Vocational Qualification curriculum, and (b) employers expect their trainees to be able to program CNC machine tools using G and M codes. The first reason seems to me to be a misconception, rather than a fact. The qualification summary for the Engineering Training Council Awards Limited (ETCAL) Level 3 NVQ in Mechanical Manufacturing Engineering requires candidates to complete three mandatory units. To achieve this, each candidate must complete all required units from one of seven optional routes, one example of an optional unit being 'Setting CNC milling machines for production'. Nowhere in the summary of this course is there a specific mention of G and M codes, in respect of 'setting up CNC 3-axis or 5-axis machines or computer numerical controlled machining centres in accordance with approved procedures'. Image: XYZ's Mike Corbett says there's no need to talk in code – G-code, that is. Control manufacturers have come up with the alternative of conversational programming Essentially, G codes began as a limited type of language that was unable to encode logic. It was just a way of 'connecting the dots', where many of the dots' locations were constructed by the programmer, rather than by the control. However, over the years, control manufacturers have come up with the alternative of conversational programming, which is a wizard-like programming mode that either hides the codes or bypasses them altogether. Popular examples include Southwestern Industries' ProtoTRAK, Siemens' Sinumerik, Mazak's Mazatrol, Hurco's Ultimax and Mori Seiki's CAPS conversational software. As to what employers expect of the training being provided to their young people, the response of college lecturers seems to be based more on assumption than fact. The bottom line is surely one of 'are you paying for someone to become a computer expert or for someone able to machine a component to the specified dimensions and tolerances?' If, as I believe, it is the latter, then there is a simple route to satisfying this expectation. Every engineering training establishment needs to be equipped with modern CNC machine tools, and to employ teachers aware of and motivated by current, rather than past, technology. Anything less does a disservice to UK manufacturing plc. First published in Machinery, November 2010