Macro syntax

Tnsquint1Tnsquint1 Registered User
I am new here and this may have been covered. If so, I apologize.

I would like for comment macro syntax to be more in line with the rest if the system syntax. For example:

If I want to "GO" multiple, non-sequential virtual lists, it seems like the syntax should be GL 41 + 47 as opposed to GL 41 , 47. That comma is just not intuitive and requires fumbling about on a qwerty keyboard for a command that should be almost instantaneous.

Likewise, if I want to automate a fader, it seems to me that the syntax should be FM 10 / 0 TIME 6 as opposed to FM 10 / 0 t 6. Again, my fingers and brain know where the time key is located, but I have to stop and look for the T key and, frankly remember that T is the command that automated a fader over time.

Comments

  • MLorenzMLorenz Registered User, Hog Beta
    edited December 2013
    The macro commands are there since HOG 3.
    So changing them now would cause even more confusion for all programmers who are used to that syntax since many years
  • Tnsquint1Tnsquint1 Registered User
    edited December 2013
    MLorenz wrote: »
    The macro commands are there since HOG 3.
    So changing them now would cause even more confusion for all programmers who are used to that syntax since many years

    I do understand that, however, that is part of the reason for posts like this. Part of the change from the Hog II OS to the Hog III was implementing consistency of syntax. I am simply saying, in keeping with that mind set, a comma makes no sense when entering values in a comment macro as pretty much any other instance, when one is entering multiple, but non consecutive numbers, the "+" sign is used. I generally do not bother with the "," key at all and simply reselect comment macro as I find it faster so I end up with GL41: GL47 and on and on which can look like a mess and often make it difficult to find cuelists that need to be released. It seems to me that "+" would be the correct syntax for the OS and would be faster as well. Since that would be the intuitive way to enter data, I doubt that would be much of a hardship to programmers.

    As to automated faders, that is a fairly new piece of functionality. Again, fiddling about for "t" on a keyboard is tedious and non-intuitive, especially when there is a dedicated TIME key n the desk and the bit of information that one is wanting to enter is indeed time.

    Regardless, I am just throwing that out there.
  • srautanesrautane Registered User, Hog Beta
    edited December 2013
    IMO, Scott is right.

    Especially use of t is very unintuitive. When I used timing first time I was also wondering why we can't use TIME key.
    The idea of Hog has been always to have a low amount of keys and they are for what is printed on the key. Copy copies whatever you want, Delete deletes... Thats why it is important that Time is used in this case too.
  • MLorenzMLorenz Registered User, Hog Beta
    edited December 2013
    I agree with the Time button, so that pressing time adds the t
    But changing to much syntax causes most of the time more confusion to legacy programmers.
    Have a look at all discussions about subtractive and additive Masking...
  • Tnsquint1Tnsquint1 Registered User
    edited December 2013
    I really know nothing about coding software but I would imagine both a "," and a "+" could be implemented to accomplish the same thing in a comment macro. It would be much faster and, as stated before, would be in keeping with the correct syntax of the console. In fact, I have no idea why a comma was ever used.
  • Tnsquint1Tnsquint1 Registered User
    edited January 2014
    MLorenz wrote: »
    The macro commands are there since HOG 3.
    So changing them now would cause even more confusion for all programmers who are used to that syntax since many years

    I tried using the comma key exactly once in my last programming session. Far too slow and frankly a stupid way to enter data. Re-selecting the comment macro command is much faster but really clutters up the work space and should be unnecessary. As to causing more confusion for legacy programmers (of which I am one) how about when the NEXT key was moved from Hog 2 to Hog 3 or the GO TO key being moved from Hog 3 to Hog 4? (nice move by the way, of course, now I can't find it with muscle memory on either console..hee, hee) Those changes were far more drastic than what I am suggesting.

    Changing the macro syntax from something clunky to something intuitive should be simple enough and if anyone were to complain about not getting to use the comma key and instead having use that pesky + key, I would be shocked.
  • MLorenzMLorenz Registered User, Hog Beta
    edited January 2014
    Goto moved closer to the numbers... Which makes hand movements faster
    And on a H4 it had to move because of pig+release would otherwise always needs 2 hands.
    Control was used by 99,9999% of the users on the touch screen...

    I dont say that your idea is stupid, but during all my trainings changing of existing syntax is causing the most problems for users.
    If both ways would work it would be great and I admit that I often get stucked into this myself that I hit the + button in this case.

    I also have no idea why the comma was used, I imagine maybe some typical programming syntax. As far as I remember from school and university in a list of elements , or ; is used to seperate the elements.
  • Tnsquint1Tnsquint1 Registered User
    edited January 2014
    I understood why GOTO was moved, and I like it there much better, it's just that my hands are still looking for it. Jumping back to a Hog 3 has my muscle memory completely screwed up. :-)

    My point simply being that if we can survive those major changes as programmers, then switching the syntax from , to + is a non issue as it is keeping with the standard syntax of the desk. I totally understand the issues with changing syntax when training, however, I believe this is a minor step that would actually alleviate one of those issues as again, this the intuitive syntax of the desk.

    I don't think I understood your "control being used by 99,999% of programmers on the touchscreen" comment. Sounds like something I should probably know but I am not following you.
Sign In or Register to comment.