Re: Diffraction Issues ...

[mooney@oxygen.aps1.anl.gov (Tim Mooney)]

In response to:

>>I don't think the number of letters in command names is particularly
>>relevant.  The problem is that current command-line driven programs
>>require the user to know too many commands.  We should offload as many'
>>functions onto EPICS (e.g., use EPICS/medm to set motor parameters).

Mitch Nelson writes:

> ...
>
>  2) Any and every functional capability must be considered as fair
>  game for a 'script' (i.e. an automated experiment or procedure).
>  Pushing capabilities off to EPICS/medm may reinforce the political
>  viability of EPICS, but it guts the capabilities of the system.

That was neither the intention nor the expected result of my remarks.
It does not gut the capability of the system to move a variable or
function from the workstation to the crate.  Since these variables and
functions remain in the system, they remain accessible to script
languages.

In fact, by moving a variable or function from within your application
into an EPICS database, it becomes accessible not only to your
application's script language, but also to everyone else's, and to
MEDM, and to EPICS records.  I'm trying hard to find anything bad here.

Tim Mooney