I am new at ladder/grafcet programming for PLC's.
I have a Windows application of my own that will write on a OMRON PLC memory (D register). The idea is to fill blocks of memory that will trigger some output (ladder programming).
So imagine for example a memory block of 5 words (D0000 to D0004). The outputs will be trigger by the contents of this 5 words.
My idea is to have one simple ladder program to "run" block of memory. So each 5 memory blocks will contain "instructions" to activate my outputs.
I tough : maybe I can implement like a "program counter" concept where the program counter points to the first 5 words and co+y/move its content to a general location on memory that will trigger the contracts of the ladder program. Then after the execution of the first 5 words the program counter will point to the next 5 words block to copy it content again and the ladder program execute its "instructions" and keep this for undefined number of 5 words block.
I am not sure if I was able to clarify my idea. There is a way to implement this using PLC ladder logic ?
Or there is any other ways to implement such thing ?
Keep in mind the idea is to have blocks of memory (composed by a fixed number of words) and each memory block will have on its bit the necessary configuration to trigger the necessary outputs (using the same ladder diagram/program).
Any help or better ideas will much appreciated.
Thank you very much
This is to use with a OMRON C2JM PLC.
You're thinking too hard about this. A PLC is a state machine, not a procedural processor. Just route the bits directly to the outputs they need to control.
For example, bit 0 of D1234 should control CIO output 1.00 then
D1234.00 1.00
----| |------------------------()
and if D1234 bit 12 should control CIO 2.15
D1234.12 2.15
----| |------------------------()
etc.
Related
I have a problem with the binary's size of old Pascal versions.
We need very small simple programs. We would like to use Turbo Pascal 2 in MS-DOS (higher is the same problem) to compile COM files. But the size is always 10 KiB and larger, even for an empty project like:
begin
end.
Compiled file sizes 10052 bytes. I do not understand why. I tested compiler commands, changed stack/heaps with no results.
Compilation output:
Compiling --> c:emtpy.com
3 lines
code: 0002 paragraphs (32 bytes), 0D7B paragraphs free
data: 0000 paragraphs (0 bytes), 0FE7 paragraphs free
stack/heap: 0400 paragraphs (16384 bytes) (minimum)
4000 paragraphs (262144 bytes) (maximum)
Is it possible to get a smaller COM file, and is it possible to convert the Pascal code automatically into ASM code?
Any version of Turbo Pascal up to 3.02 will result into an executable file which includes the whole Run-Time Library. As you discovered, the size of it for TP2 on your target operating system is about 10,050 bytes.
We need very small simple programs.
... then Turbo Pascal 2 is not a good option to start up. Better try with any version from 4 up, if you want to stick with Pascal and are targeting MS-DOS. Or switch to C or assembly language, which will be able to produce smaller executables, at the cost of being more difficult to develop.
[...] is it possible to convert the Pascal code automatically into ASM code.
It can be done using Turbo Pascal but it is not practical (basically you need a disassembler; IDA is such a tool, used nowadays; the version you need is not free.) Also you won't gain much by smashing some bytes from an already compiled application: you will end much better starting it straight in assembly language.
Anyway, the best course to achieve it is to drop Turbo Pascal and go to Free Pascal, which compiler produces .s files, which are written in assembly language (although maybe not in the the same syntax as you are used.) There is (was?) a sub-project to target the 16-bit i8086 processor, which seems reasonably up-to-date (I never tried it.)
Update
You mentioned in a comment you really need the .COM format (which Turbo Pascal 4-7 does not support directly). The problem then is about the memory model. .COM programs are natively using the so-called tiny model (16-bit code and data segments overlapping at the same location), but it can be somewhat evaded for application (not TSR) which can grab all the available memory; TP 1-3 for MS-DOS uses a variant of the compact model (data pointers are 32-bit "far" but code pointers are 16-bit "near", which caps at 64 Ki bytes of code); TP 4-7 are instead using the large model where each unit have a separate code segment. It could be possible to rewrite the Run-Time Library to use only one code segment, then relink the TP-produced executables to convert the FAR CALLs into NEAR CALLs (that one is easy since all the information is in the relocation table of the .EXE). However, you will be home sooner using directly Free Pascal, which supports natively the tiny memory model and can produce .COM executables; while still being highly compatible with Turbo Pascal.
I'm trying to get a "retro-computing" class open and would like to give people the opportunity to finish projects at home (without carrying a 3kb monstrosity out of 1980 with them) I've heard that repl.it has every programming language, does it have QuickBasic and how do I use it online? Thanks for the help in advance!
You can do it (hint: search for QBasic; it shares syntax with QuickBASIC), but you should be aware that it has some limitations as it's running on an incomplete JavaScript implementation. For completeness, I'll reproduce the info from the original blog post:
What works
Only text mode is supported. The most common commands (enough to run
nibbles) are implemented. These include:
Subs and functions
Arrays
User types
Shared variables
Loops
Input from screen
What doesn't work
Graphics modes are not supported
No statements are allowed on the same line as IF/THEN
Line numbers are not supported
Only the built-in functions used by NIBBLES.BAS are implemented
All subroutines and functions must be declared using DECLARE
This is far from being done. In the comments, AC0KG points out that
P=1-1 doesn't work.
In short, it would need another 50 or 100 hours of work and there is
no reason to do this.
One caveat that I haven't been able to determine is a statement like INPUT or LINE INPUT... They just don't seem to work for me on repl.it, and I don't know where else one might find qb.js hosted.
My recommendation: FreeBASIC
I would recommend FreeBASIC instead, if possible. It's essentially a modern reimplementation coded in C++ (last I knew) with additional functionality.
Old DOS stuff like the DEF SEG statement and VARSEG function are no longer applicable since it is a modern BASIC implementation operating on a 32-bit flat address space rather than 16-bit segmented memory. I'm not sure what the difference between the old SADD function and the new StrPtr function is, if there is any, but the idea is the same: return the address of the bytes that make up a string.
You could also disable some stuff and maintain QB compatibility using #lang "qb" as the first line of a program as there will be noticeable differences when using the default "fb" dialect, or you could embrace the new features and avoid the "qb" dialect, focusing primarily on the programming concepts instead; the choice is yours. Regardless of the dialect you choose, the basic stuff should work just fine:
DECLARE SUB collatz ()
DIM SHARED n AS INTEGER
INPUT "Enter a value for n: ", n
PRINT n
DO WHILE n <> 4
collatz
PRINT n
LOOP
PRINT 2
PRINT 1
SUB collatz
IF n MOD 2 = 1 THEN
n = 3 * n + 1
ELSE
n = n \ 2
END IF
END SUB
A word about QB64
One might argue that there is a much more compatible transpiler known as QB64 (except for some things like DEF FN...), but I cannot recommend it if you want a tool for students to use. It's a large download for Windows users, and its syntax checking can be a bit poor at times, to the point that you might see the QB code compile only to see a cryptic message like "C++ compilation failed! See internals\temp\compile.txt for details". Simply put, it's usable and highly compatible, but it needs some work, like the qb.js script that repl.it uses.
An alternative: DOSBox and autorun
You could also find a way to run an actual copy of QB 4.5 in something like DOSBox and simply modify the autorun information in the default DOSBox.conf (or whatever it's called) to automatically launch QB. Then just repackage it with the modified DOSBox.conf in a nice installer for easy distribution (NSIS, Inno Setup, etc.) This will provide the most retro experience beyond something like a FreeDOS virtual machine as you'll be dealing with the 16-bit segmented memory, VGA, etc.—all emulated of course.
I'm trying to run a Netlogo model in behaviorspace, in headless mode, on a linux server.
My netlogo version is 5.3.1 (the 64b version).
The server has 32 cores with 64gigs of RAM.
I'm setting Xmx to 3072m.
After a few runs (~300) the memory usage is so high that I get a Java heap space error.
Surprisingly, the memory usage grows regularly, as if there were no flush-like function called between runs. And it gets to a point it shouldn't reach if I understand things well (for example, for 15 parallel threads it reaches 64000MB and beyond when it should stay around 15 * 3072 = 46080.
I'm using ca at setup so I thought everything was supposed to be flushed out between runs. I'm not opening any file from the code (I use the standard behaviorspace output, in table format, not spreadsheet), and I'm not using any extension.
I'm kind oh puzzled here. Is there something I should look at into behaviorspace specific parameterization that says to keeps track of variables, turtles, etc. between runs ? I couldn't find such a thing.
Could someone help me ?
Thanks a lot !
Thomas
I'm studying programming and in many sources I see the concepts: "machine language", "binary code" and "binary file". The distinction between these three is unclear to me, because according to my understanding machine language means the raw language that a computer can understand i.e. sequences of 0s and 1s.
Now if machine language is a sequence of 0s and 1s and binary code is also a sequence of 0s and 1s then does machine language = binary code?
What about binary file? What really is a binary file? To me the word "binary file" means a file, which consists of binary code. So for example, if my file was:
010010101010010
010010100110100
010101100111010
010101010101011
010101010100101
010101010010111
Would this be a binary file? If I google binary file and see Wikipedia I see this example picture of binary file which confuses me (it's not in binary?....)
Where is my confusion happening? Am I mixing file encoding here or what? If I were to ask one to SHOW me what is machine language, binary code and binary file, what would they be? =) I guess the distinction is too abstract to me.
Thnx for any help! =)
UPDATE:
In Python for example, there is one phrase in a file I/O tutorial, which I don't understand: Opens a file for reading only in binary format. What does reading a file in binary format mean?
Machine code and binary are the same - a number system with base 2 - either a 1 or 0. But machine code can also be expressed in hex-format (hexadecimal) - a number system with base 16. The binary system and hex are very interrelated with each other, its easy to convert from binary to hex and convert back from hex to binary. And because hex is much more readable and useful than binary - it's often used and shown. For instance in the picture above in your question -uses hex-numbers!
Let say you have the binary sequence 1001111000001010 - it can easily be converted to hex by grouping in blocks - each block consisting of four bits.
1001 1110 0000 1010 => 9 14 0 10 which in hex becomes: 9E0A.
One can agree that 9E0A is much more readable than the binary - and hex is what you see in the image.
I'm honestly surprised to not see the information I was looking for, looking back though, I guess the title of this thread isn't fully appropriate to the question the OP was asking.
You guys all say "Machine Code is a bunch of numbers".
Sure, the "CODE" is a bunch of numbers, but what people are wondering (I'm guessing) is "what actually is happening physically?"
I'm quite a novice when it comes to programming, but I understand enough to feel confident in 'roughly' answering this question.
Machine code, to the actual circuitry, isn't numbers or values.
Machine code is a bunch of voltage gates that are either open or closed, and depending on what they're connected to, a certain light will flicker at a certain time etc.
I'm guessing that the "machine code" dictates the pathway and timing for specific electrical signals that will travel to reach their overall destination.
So for 010101, 3 voltage gates are closed (The 0's), 3 are open (The 1's)
I know I'm close to the right answer here, but I also know it's much more sophisticated - because I can imagine that which I don't know.
010101 would be easy instructions for a simple circuit, but what I can't begin to fathom is how a complex computer processes all of the information.
So I guess let's break it down?
x-Bit-processors tell how many bits the processor can process at once.
A bit is either 1 or 0, "On" or "Off", "Open" or "Closed"
so 32-bit processors process "10101010 10101010 10101010 10101010" - this many bits at once.
A processor is an "integrated circuit", which is like a compact circuit board, containing resistors/capacitors/transistors and some memory. I'm not sure if processors have resistors but I know you'll usually find a ton of them located around the actual processor on the circuit board
Anyways, a transistor is a switch so if it receives a 1, it sends current in one direction, or if it receives a 0, it'll send current in a different direction... (or something like that)
So I imagine that as machine code goes... the segment of code the processor receives changes the voltage channels in such a way that it sends a signal to another part of the computer (why do you think processors have so many pins?), probably another integrated circuit more specialized to a specific task.
That integrated circuit then receives a chunk of code, let's say 2 to 4 bits 01 or 1100 or something, which further defines where the final destination of the signal will end up, which might be straight back to the processor, or possibly to some output device.
Machine code is a very efficient way of taking a circuit and connecting it to a lightbulb, and then taking that lightbulb out of the circuit and switching the circuit over to a different lightbulb
Memory in a computer is highly necessary because otherwise to get your computer to do anything, you would need to type out everything (in machine code). Instead, all of the 1's and 0's are stored inside some storage device, either a spinning hard disk with a magnetic head pin that 'reads' 1's or 0's based on the charge of the disk, or a flash memory device that uses a series of transistors, where sending a voltage through elicits 1's and 0's (I'm not fully aware how flash memory works)
Fortunately, someone took the time to think up a different base number system for programming (hex), and a way to compile those numbers (translate them) back into binary. And then all software programs have branched out from there.
Each key on the keyboard creates a specific signal in binary that translates to
a bunch of switches being turned on or off using certain voltages, so that a current could be run through the specific individual pixels on your screen that create "1" or "0" or "F", or all the characters of this post.
So I wonder, how does a program 'program', or 'make' the computer 'do' something... Rather, how does a compiler compile a program of a code different from binary?
It's hard to think about now because I'm extremely tired (so I won't try) but also because EVERYTHING you do on a computer is because of some program.
There are actively running programs (processes) in task manager. These keep your computer screen looking the way you've become accustomed, and also allow for the screen to be manipulated as if to say the pictures on the screen were real-life objects. (They aren't, they're just pictures, even your mouse cursor)
(Ok I'm done. enough editing and elongating my thoughts, it's time for bed)
Also, what I don't really get is how 0's are 'read' by the computer.
It seems that a '0' must not be a 'lack of voltage', rather, it must be some other type of signal
Where perhaps something like 1 volt = 1, and 0.5 volts = 0. Some distinguishable difference between currents in a circuit that would still send a signal, but could be the difference between opening and closing a specific circuit.
If I'm close to right about any of this, serious props to the computer engineers of the world, the level of sophistication is mouthwatering. I hope to know everything about technology someday. For now I'm just trying to get through arduino.
Lastly... something I've wondered about... would it even be possible to program today's computers without the use of another computer?
Machine language is a low-level programming language that generally consists entirely of numbers. Because they are just numbers, they can be viewed in binary, octal, decimal, hexadecimal, or any other way. Dave4723 gave a more thorough explanation in his answer.
Binary code isn't a very well-defined technical term, but it could mean any information represented by a sequence of 1s and 0s, or it could mean code in a machine language, or it could mean something else depending on context.
Technically, all files are stored in binary, we just don't usually look at the binary when we view a file. However, the term binary file is usually used to refer to any non-text file; e.g. an .exe, a .png, etc.
You have to understand how a computer works in its basic principles and this will clear things up for you... Therefore I recommend on reading into stuff like Neumann Architecture
Basically in a very simple computer you only have one memory like an array
which has instructions for your processor, the data and everything is a binary numbers.
Your program starts at a certain place in your memory and reads the first number...
so here comes the twist: these numbers can be instructions or data.
Your processor reads these numbers and interprets them as instructions
Example: the start address is 0
in 0 is a instruction like "read value from address 120 into the ALU (Math-Unit)
then it steps to address 1
"read value from address 121 into ALU"
then it steps to address 2
"subtract numbers in ALU"
then it steps to address 3
"if ALU-Value is smaller than zero go to address 10"
it is not smaller than zero so it steps to address 4
"go to address 20"
you see that this is a basic if(a < b)
You can write these instructions as numbers and they can be run by your processor but because nobody wants to do this work (that was what they did with punchcards in the 60s)
assembler was invented...
that looks like:
add 10 ,11, 20 // load var from address 10 and 11; run addition and store into address 20
In Conclusion:
Assembler (processor instructions) can be called binary because it's stored in plain numbers
But everything else can be a Binary file, too.
In reality if you have a simple .exe file it is both... If you have variables in there like a = 10 and b = 20, these values can be stored some where between if clauses and for loops... It depends on the compiler where it put these
But if you have a complex 3D-model it can be stored in a separate file with no executable code in it...
I hope it helps to clear things up a little.
A computer scientist will correctly explain that all programs are
interpreted and that the only question is at what level. --perlfaq
How are all programs interpreted?
A Perl program is a text file read by the perl program which causes the perl program to follow a sequence of actions.
A Java program is a text file which has been converted into a series of byte codes which are then interpreted by the java program to follow a sequence of actions.
A C program is a text file which is converted via the C compiler into an assembly program which is converted into machine code by the assembler. The machine code is loaded into memory which causes the CPU to follow a sequence of actions.
The CPU is a jumble of transistors, resistors, and other electrical bits which is laid out by hardware engineers so that when electrical impulses are applied, it will follow a sequence of actions as governed by the laws of physics.
Physicists are currently working out what makes those rules and how they are interpreted.
Essentially, every computer program is interpreted by something else which converts it into something else which eventually gets translated into how the electrons in your local neighborhood fly around.
EDIT/ADDED: I know the above is a bit tongue-in-cheek, so let me add a slightly less goofy addition:
Interpreted languages are where you can go from a text file to something running on your computer in one simple step.
Compiled languages are where you have to take an extra step in the middle to convert the language text into machine- or byte-code.
The latter can easily be easily be converted into the former by a simple transformation:
Make a program called interpreted-c, which can take one or more C files and can run a program which doesn't take any arguments:
#!/bin/sh
MYEXEC=/tmp/myexec.$$
gcc -o $MYEXEC ${1+"$#"} && $MYEXEC
rm -f $MYEXEC
Now which definition does your C program fall into? Compare & contrast:
$ perl foo.pl
$ interpreted-c foo.c
Machine code is interpreted by the processor at runtime, given that the same machine code supplied to a processor of a certain arch (x86, PowerPC etc), should theoretically work the same regardless of the specific model's 'internal wiring'.
EDIT:
I forgot to mention that an arch may add new instructions for things like accessing new registers, in which case code written to use it won't work on older processors in the range. Much like when you try to use an old version of a library and then try to use capabilities only found in newer libraries.
Example: many Linux distros are released as 686 only, despite the fact it's in the 'x86 family'. This is due to the use of new instructions.
My first thought was too look inside the CPU — see below — but that's not right. The answer is much much simpler than that.
A high-level description of a CPU is:
1. execute the current op
2. grab the next op
3. goto 1
Compare it to Perl's interpreter:
while ((PL_op = op = op->op_ppaddr(aTHX))) {
}
(Yeah, that's the whole thing.)
There can be no doubt that the CPU is an interpreter.
It just goes to show how useless it is to classify something is interpreted or not.
Original answer:
Even at the CPU level, programs get rewritten into simpler instructions to allow the CPU to execute more them more quickly. This is done by changing the order in which they are executed and executing them in parallel. For example, Intel's Hyperthreading.
Even deeper, each instruction is considered a program of its own, one that routes electronic signals. See microcode.
The Levels of interpretions are really easy to explain:
2: Runtimelanguage (CLR, Java Runtime...) & Scriptlanguage (Python, Ruby...)
1: Assemblies
0: Binary Code
Edit: I changed the level of Scriptinglanguages to the same level of Runtimelanguages. Thank's for the hint. :-)
I can write a Game Boy interpreter that works similarly to how the Java Virtual Machine works, treating the z80 machine instructions as byte code. Assuming the original was written in C1, does that mean C suddenly became an interpreted language just because I used it like one?
From another angle, gcc can compile C into machine code for a number of different processors. There's no reason the target machine has to be the same as the machine you're compiling on. In fact, this is a common way to compile C code for AVRs and other microcontrollers.
As a matter of abstraction, the compiler's job is to translate flat text into a structure, then translate that structure into something that can be executed somewhere. Whatever is doing the execution may have its own levels of breaking out the structure before really executing it.
A lot of power becomes available once you start thinking along these lines.
A good book on this is Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Even if you only get through the first chapter (or half of the first chapter), I think you'll learn a lot.
1 I think most Game Boy stuff was hand coded ASM, but the principle remains.