[Tfug] Language choices

[Bexley Hall]

Hi, Rob,

--- Robert Hunter <hunter at tfug.org> wrote:

> > That was the point of the discussion.  *Picking*
> > a suitable language to do this that would be
> > amenable to the users' needs -- and capable of
> > being implemented within the design criteria of
> > the system itself (the details of which are
> > embedded in those 10,000 lines)
> 
> Don, quite a thread this has turned into!  By the
> way, I hear those pharmaceutical companies have
> pretty deep pockets.  Any chance you are looking
> for some "help" on this project? ;-)

<grin>  Sorry, I was describing a previous project
to give a concrete example of the sorts of things
a "scripting language" could be useful for.  :>

While they have "deep pockets", they don't p*ss
money away needlessly.  And, they don't buy very
*many* of these since:
- they are very large (some weigh up to 4 tons)
- they take up a lot of space (each tablet press
  needs it's own "room" -- since you have to
  guard against "cross-contamination"... you don't
  want the granulation from "birth control pills"
  to migrate into the area/room that is producing
  "children's aspirin" :> )
- they are expensive (a sizeable fraction of a
  megabuck -- for the smaller machines)
- the don't "wear out" (!) -- the punches and
  die see all the real wear and tear and those
  are removable (as they must be since each "pill"
  uses a different set... each *set* is many
  thousands of dollars)
- the "system" itself must go through a "validation"
  process with FDA.  So, making "specials" is VERY
  expensive.  And, if the "specialness" is required
  for a particular product (drug), you have to look
  at the ROI on this investment if the machine is
  *only* usable on that product.

The current business model in that industry sells
a set of controls with a single tablet press.  So,
anything that makes those controls "special"
ends up making that tablet press "special".  If you
can make the controls more *flexible* (configurable),
then you can make at least the *controls* more
interchangeable.  E.g., the controls for a 1000000tph
press and a 100000tph -- tablets per hour -- press
can be virtually identical.  Likewise, accommodating
a "double sided" press (makes two tablets at a time,
each using 180 degrees of the "turntable") can be
*almost* as simple as two sets of single-sided
controls in the same box.   etc.

Point being:  if make the design more accommodating,
you can sell *more* of the control systems since they
can migrate from machine to machine.  (i.e. instead
of having to call for service when you have a problem,
you can just swap out the control system!  This means
you, as a vendor, don't have to keep expensive service
staff sitting around *waiting* to fly out "overnight"
to service a downed machine).  And, since the controls
are then more universal, you can reduce your cost of
manufacturing -- since they are all "identical" -- and
delivery time by just keeping some "in stock".  This
also helps you better plan your work flow and labor
requirements -- you don't have to shift your work
priorities when an order for a control system comes
in; you just build them as you have time available!

--don


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups 
(http://groups.yahoo.com)