Sometimes I wonder...

Sometimes I wonder... about helping these... newbies.

There was a post by JNelson...

http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showthread.php?t=25460

It raised some very pertinent issues... especially for those of us that have been around since the PLC was born.

On the one hand, there is the idea of understanding the fundamental concepts of Logic and Process Control.

On the other hand, there is always the idea of understanding the NEW WAYS of looking at things.

"NEW" does NOT necessarily mean Better! It only means... DIFFERENT!

The fundamental concepts of Logical and Process Control are... FOREVER!

But... it appears that the ways of handling those basic concepts are forever changing.

In some cases, a particular "new way" is not too unreasonable. In these particular cases, they generally follow "human-think".

But then there are those that require you to abandon "human-think" and embrace "brand-think".

Having "Brand-Rules" for the sake of having rules is LUDICROUS!

Those "Brand-Rules" might apply to PLCs, HMI's, or any number of other devices.

I guess it just drives me nuts that some brands go out of their way to ignore the intuitive and, instead, tend toward the cryptic.

So... what does that have to do with helping the newbies?

In doing so... we, that is, those of us that are very experienced and fully cognizant of the fundamental concepts of Logic, and Process Control, AND Process Development, are... training these new guys... these wanna-bees... that want to take our places... probably much sooner than we would care to let that happen!

I don't really expect anything except negative responses from those that haven't really, and I mean really, really, considered their own professional futures.

No... I am NOT calling for stagnation in the development of process control programming...

Rather, I am calling for the development of MORE Intuitive, more "Human-Think", process control programming!

So... go ahead... dump.

At the least, I hope you really read all of it before coming down with your slam.

Here is a very, very, serious question... When it comes to the difference between the "Dog wagging the Tail" and the "Tail wagging the Dog"... Who is who? Who SHOULD BE Who (or should that be... Whom)?

Are WE, the programmers, the Tail,... or are WE, the programmers, the Dog?

PLEASE! Take a few days, really, really, at least a few days, thinking about this before you dump on me!

I guess it's not really about helping the newbies, as much as about ALLOWING those BA$TARDS to continually change the rules to suit THEIR particular concepts of what-is-what, despite common-sense (human-think).

Ok... DUMP!

if you didn't put the word "newbes" in your post, i'd swear you were talking about management.

i'm still not sure where you're going with this. is it that the new programmers want to take things so far out of the loop that nothing is standard anymore or is your gripe with clueless plant managers that think they know better than programmers but know exactly squat?

Jnelsons complaint seemed to be with the clueless twits who find themselves in mangers positions. they want maximum uptime, maximum profit, and minimum cost. they want a two month project in two weeks. i've delt with this on a number of occasions in my line of work.

the only reason i didn't post in Jnelsons recent thread is that i don't want to give advice that would get someone fired...because i have a bull**** tollerance on the far negative side of zero.

I hate to dissapoint you, no arguement here.

Terry Woods said:

Sometimes I wonder... about helping these... newbies.

There was a post by JNelson...

http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showthread.php?t=25460

It raised some very pertinent issues... especially for those of us that have been around since the PLC was born.

On the one hand, there is the idea of understanding the fundamental concepts of Logic and Process Control.

Click to expand...

I didn't read JNelson's thread that way. I would have to agree with Castlerock. It was about the unreasonable pressure put on some people and what they do to cope with it.

On the other hand, there is always the idea of understanding the NEW WAYS of looking at things.

"NEW" does NOT necessarily mean Better! It only means... DIFFERENT!

The fundamental concepts of Logical and Process Control are... FOREVER!

But... it appears that the ways of handling those basic concepts are forever changing.

In some cases, a particular "new way" is not too unreasonable. In these particular cases, they generally follow "human-think".

Click to expand...

I will spoil your fun and agree. I have often said there is 'forever knowledge' and tools. The tools change. In the past years I have tried to concentrate on the 'forever knowledge' but it is hard without using some tools.

But then there are those that require you to abandon "human-think" and embrace "brand-think".

Having "Brand-Rules" for the sake of having rules is LUDICROUS!

Those "Brand-Rules" might apply to PLCs, HMI's, or any number of other devices.

I guess it just drives me nuts that some brands go out of their way to ignore the intuitive and, instead, tend toward the cryptic.

Click to expand...

Again I will spoil your fun and agree. Just look a g.robert's encoder thread. That is a crime.

So... what does that have to do with helping the newbies?

Click to expand...

nothing.

In doing so... we, that is, those of us that are very experienced and fully cognizant of the fundamental concepts of Logic, and Process Control, AND Process Development, are... training these new guys... these wanna-bees... that want to take our places... probably much sooner than we would care to let that happen!

Click to expand...

Are you worried? I'm not.

I don't really expect anything except negative responses from those that haven't really, and I mean really, really, considered their own professional futures.

Click to expand...

Why? I know I am past considering my future. Any day I wake up is a good day.

No... I am NOT calling for stagnation in the development of process control programming...

Click to expand...

Ok, consider yourself slammed for not making your point clear. You seemed to be asking for it.

Rather, I am calling for the development of MORE Intuitive, more "Human-Think", process control programming!

Click to expand...

But machines are machines! What happened to 'be the machine'?
I would take a lot smarter tools than what we have now to do better and too many complain about the price of the tools now.

So... go ahead... dump.

Click to expand...

It looks like you want an argument with yourself or someone to take an opposing view.

Here is a very, very, serious question... When it comes to the difference between the "Dog wagging the Tail" and the "Tail wagging the Dog"... Who is who? Who SHOULD BE Who (or should that be... Whom)?

Are WE, the programmers, the Tail,... or are WE, the programmers, the Dog?

Click to expand...

This is a different topic or perhaps the topic you wanted to get to all along. Those that create the tools are the dog. Those that use the tools are the tail. It is that simple. All of are the tail in most cases. I get to be the dog only in the case that I design motion controllers that many others use. Yet I use tools to design the motion controllers. In those cases I am a tail. So? I don't understand your point.

I guess it's not really about helping the newbies, as much as about ALLOWING those BA$TARDS to continually change the rules to suit THEIR particular concepts of what-is-what, despite common-sense (human-think).

Click to expand...

I agree. It isn't about newbies as much as those that are the dog changing the rules. For example, MS Windows. The way one programs Windows has changed many times over the years and it keeps changing. Unix/Linux stays relatively the same. At least the core does. Those that object to being wagged by microsoft chose Linux. I guess I do understand.

Terry has tossed out a multi-headed beast here. Interestingly, the heads are only loosely related as far as I can see. But I am going to reply on one point.

I've always been what I consider pragmatic about my employment. If someone can come along that performs the functions I currently perform more 'correctly' and/or economically, either in terms of time or materials, then I SHOULD be kicked to the curb. At that crossroad I can either find the needle or buck up and become better.

But one thing I know for sure is the way to become better is through the fundamentals. As Peter correctly states, tools are just tools. Those will change as time goes on and one just needs to learn how to use them. But once you have the fundamentals and understand how to apply them you can use nearly any tool that fits to perform the task.

Keep in mind that, such a 37 years ago, some very dedicated individulas lobbed three men and several thousand pounds of materal at the moon AND HIT IT without any of the fancy tools we consider vital to our professions today. My best advice to anyone entering this profession today is stand back and look at the forest. Don't focus on a tree.

Keith

Ok, I’ll bite.

Good day Uncle Terry, I’m not really sure what your gripe is….but lets assume for the moment that it is with assisting new programmers with their code, because if it’s a problem with management or manufacturers changing the rules, well then you’re basically just preaching to the choir.



Now there is a couple of things I don’t understand (besides plc’s), if you are unwilling to assist then way do you participate in a site created for that express purpose? If you are unwilling to assist, then way do you do so with the vigor and assertiveness that you have displayed so many times before?



I have seen assistance (debate?) from you in treads thousands of characters long, kind of strange considering you don’t actually want to assist at all?



All I’ve seen from this post is a lot of B*tching and not a whole lot of suggesting. So my question to you is then, where do you suggest we learn? And from whom?

As I remember you had a lot to say about instructors “out there”. So don’t complain if we opt for the alternative of asking advice (yours to give or not) from the “instructors” in here.

If it’s recognition for your efforts that you want, then I suggest that you stop being a @sshole, I believe people will then start thanking you for the valued contribution that you make to this forum(how unwillingly it might be).



This is just my opinion, and can be disregarded at your leisure.

Just a short comment from me. I am a long time programmer, but I don't participate here much.
I can't relate to the issue of the tools changing with things like UDT's and indirect addressing, and some kind of black box types of tools.
I have felt some pain with new programmers coming into this field all spun up on the newest software. Its kind of fun to watch them struggle when they have to use the older DOS software.
I am learning to use the new functions of the old tools, some of it here. You are to I am sure. Plus you still retain the knowledge of things the newbies don't know.

Hang in there.

DDV said:

. So my question to you is then, where do you suggest we learn? And from whom?

Click to expand...

Terry Woods said:

I guess it just drives me nuts that some brands go out of their way to ignore the intuitive and, instead, tend toward the cryptic.

Click to expand...

I agree with Terry, PLC programming should be intutively obvious. What isn't falls in Terry's cryptic category. If designers, the tail waggers, actually used their own products, the products would be better.

SMOKE said:

I can't relate to the issue of the tools changing with things like UDT's and indirect addressing, and some kind of black box types of tools.

Click to expand...

idirect addressing has been around since Noah.

Another can of worms...

I usually don't spend much time commenting on Terry's posts, mainly because I don't have enough time.(They're so long.) But here, I'd like to just throw something out there along the same lines. If one is going to evaluate who and when he helps, where does the subject of foregn business fall. How can Terry hurt himself and unseat himself in his current job faster. By helping new programmers working in the US, or programmers from all over the world. As China(and other countries) up and comes, helping programmers working to get production facilities up to par there could threaten Terry's job more than helping a junior programmer in his own company get started. Why? Because it's a possibility that both Terry and his junior partner could be out of a job.

I am not saying that those asking questions shouldn't be helped. I feel the exact opposite, no matter who they are or where they work. As long as everyone's thinking about who they will help and when or why, I wanted to add this to the discussion.

One has to keep up with things or get left behind. Today's "NEWBIE's" will be tomorrows "OLD HANDS". Once upon a time we were all newbies.

Some folks specialized in certain areas some of us specialized in others. Today even more your are so specialized in one area you know everthing about so little. Then there are those like the techs where I work that have to be drives and controls specialists and are learning to be PLC specialists. I am constantly having to learn NEW SOFTWARE and programming just to keep up. I enjoy matching wits with newbies with a couple of years out of college. They think they know everything. When it comes to computers and programs, they are usually my better. When it comes to understanding the equipment the computers and programs control, I have the upper hand. I like working with those that have knowledge I do not possess. It gives me a chance to learn the new stuff from someone that is using it in the field.

IF and it is a big IF, you plan on working in automation, PLC's, drives, process controls and associated fields, you either keep up or get out of the way of those equipped to handle it.

I fully entend on keeping up.

I don't visit here too much anymore but when I do I really find it interesting that the arrogance of members towards 'newbies' and the amount of threads containing flaming and trolling seems to be increasing proportional to the amount of spamming threads for free cell phones/computers/drugs/***/rolexes...

This site used to be about helping.

DISCLAIMER: This is only my opinion. It is based on my viewing of threads randomly over an irregular time period. A scientific approach was not utilized. No control group was formed. Not all threads were read.

Personally I did not understand what Terry's point was.

As Peter stated, knowledge is the key, the how something is done could vary depending on the tools used etc but to get it done you will have to know or learn what is applicable to the application.

I have no idea what newbies have to do with anything, they are just people trying to learn about something they may have to work with. With or without help many will learn anyway, some may be good while others will not.

What has driven me nuts the last 5 years is that one damn word..intuitive. The definition of that is pertaining to intuition; which means to perceive as truth or fact. In other words intuition is not an art or a science, it is perception; which may vary for each individual.

For years all I heard was BE THE COMPUTER/MACHINE, now it is about human think. I caught on about IF, THEN, ELSE, more or less, i.e. as a kid if you stuck your hand in the ashtray then a parent may warn you not to do that else if you do your hand will get slapped.

So who is changing the rules now? Is it be the computer or human think?

Geez Terry, you were the one that impressed this on me. Machines do not think like humans, yet. We have to learn to use the tools to make the machines follow a pattern that conforms to how humans think so we can understand what is happening.

The call it programming languages, that makes sense because the key to learning a foreign language is learning to "think" in that language, the same applies to programming. Perception plays a part in creating a programming interface since no 2 people will think alike; therefore you will get brand specific type instructions that are basically the same but structured differently.

Another aspect is that new features are being incoporated into hardware all the time, the how to use the new features will be different from what was done in the past.

Terry, I think you are awesome, you learned and have done this beginning in an era when the tools were limited so learned to do so much more, through necessity, than others. The concepts today are still the same as they always were, the tools have changed and/or improved is all.

All that said, I think you may have gotten into a position of stagnation per se. You have a job that it appears you pretty much designed the systems for. It is old, solid, and reliable. It allowed you to use your perception (intuition) of the facts concerning how to do it. You have shunned all other systems because of this perception.

In many cases here it is not Engineers that are trying to learn plc's, it is techs, electricians, and maintenance trying to step up to be better at their job. These people do not have formal education in theory etc, just hands on experience work with equipment. The Engineers, who do have formal training, usually have specific questions pertaining to specific applications, like Paula, and many others.

I still do not understand the original post, it lumped many things into one or two categories; which should not have been done.

How do you get paid?

I know how I get paid. I get paid by my company making product and selling it for a profit.

If I can not make a machine run efficent then I cause a negitive effect on profits.

If I maintain the machine then I have zero effect on profits.

If I make a machine run more effecient then I have a possitive effect on profits.


This is the job of a tech., a designer, a programer or whoever works on machines for a manufactoring facility.

Now if you are an OEM you might have it different.

What does this have to do with Terry's post? Well this is my opinion of what it has to do with Terry's post.

You use the tools you have. End of story. doesn't matter if they suck, if they are cryptic or whatever. It just doesn't matter. You do not have to like them, they do not have to be easy to use. They just have to get the job done.


Peter N said "This is a different topic or perhaps the topic you wanted to get to all along. Those that create the tools are the dog. Those that use the tools are the tail. It is that simple. All of are the tail in most cases. I get to be the dog only in the case that I design motion controllers that many others use. Yet I use tools to design the motion controllers. In those cases I am a tail. So? I don't understand your point. "

So I get paid to be the tail. I take getting wagged around Because that is my JOB.

As for the post that Terry refered to http://www.plctalk.net/qanda/showthread.php?t=25460

I took it a different way. I took at being a guy who let his JOB control his LIFE. So I do not see the reference to it for the rest of Terry's thought or thoughts.

Thats my 2 cents worth anyway.

I agree with Ron and take it a step further. There is no such thing as intuitive. All you can do is try to hit the center of the bell curve.

This site is also a horrible place to make general inferences about "newbs" in this field. Most are here for help. The good ones, therefore, are not here.