| ▲ | Kim_Bruning 3 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oh I can tell stories too! Meanwhile these guys often have huge amounts of practical experience as electricians or control technicians/engineers to go with their PLC skills, so you can't just say we should get rid of them either. Breaking into the industrial market is tricky if you don't have connections too. And if you're hired as the PLC programmer, it's sometimes an afterthought AFTER the plant is already built. "What do you mean it'll take another month? The plant is finished, isn't it?". Oh, and some projects ban "PC"s to begin with. Which sort of excludes any kind of PC programmer. And it sort of even makes sense. A lot of default PC behaviors (especially commercial software), are no longer user-unfriendly but potentially very expensive or even user-lethal when attached to a physical plant. Sounds like I could learn some things from you (and maybe vice versa). Poke me on the email in my HN profile! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | aliasxneo 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes, I don't mean to poke fun solely on the integrators. I've seen the "software first" type land in the same role and flail just as hard, if not harder. I recall one individual, who was quite proud of his "beautiful" ladder logic code, after about 3 months of being at the company ended up destroying a $100k+ chiller plant by cavitating all of the pumps because they didn't understand head pressure. I think that's one of the core difficulties with PLC programming. You have to have strong knowledge on traditional science fields like thermal dynamics, material sciences, fluid mechanics, etc., while also understanding the limitations of a 16 bit floating point integer and why overflowing that can be catastrophic. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||