Taking a block of code that you use over and over again and making it a library or DLL then doing function calls is the same as a module in Crestron. In a way the module is like a STRUCT.

So if you would call a function call to a library programming then using a module in crestron should also be called programming.

Today with all the open source code and github downloading a chunk of code in a library is the norm in C# or JAVA. That is still called programming if you are doing the function calls.

So even using a module from Crestron/AMX etc should be called programming.

Yes, it's a type of programming. When using the Java and C# programming languages you are doing object oriented programming. There are a lot of different types of programming these days.

This argument reminds me of back in the late 90s early 00s when everyone was still creating custom websites using PHP/MySQL no matter what the use case was. Even if it was just someone's personal blog, the web design firm would either code it from scratch or use a custom CMS (content management system) that they had already developed for another project. In the best cases the results were mixed. The site may look and do what the user wanted but ongoing maintenance, difficulty to add new features and the learning curve for a new developer who would take over the new site were major problems. Luckily the industry evolved and they made CMS' that were available to meet the needs of almost any client. No need to create a custom system for a real estate agent, just configure the CMS to use the correct site template and the client would be good to go. Of course there is still the need for lots of custom websites built from the ground up, but these CMS' took care of 90% of the clients.

Control system software needs to move to where they are configured rather than programmed. The use cases for residential systems are pretty well defined. Control4 has been a nice step in that direction. Integrators need to put more pressure on the manufacturers to deliver more functionality and drivers out of the box so the install time is less and the software is less prone to coding errors that a homeowner does not want to pay for to fix.

I still think there is plenty of room for a fully custom programmed Crestron system, just not for residential. Bars, hotels, corporate buildings, conference centers, casinos, etc. still have lots of different configurations that would be impossible to nail down for configuration. But for a typical family home a custom system is not in the best interest of the client.

If >I< wrote the module, yes, its programming.

If I'm dragging in someone else's modules and connecting the dots, its Configuring.



You seem upset about something.

I've been doing real programming for 30+ years.... C++, Visual Basic, Some Java, xml/html... I even started with Fortran and Pascal on a Commodore Vic-20...

Other than digging into a few XML Savant profiles to make corrections or updates, I dont really "program" anymore. I think most guys that are doing Savant and Control4 nowadays would feel the same way.

The primary reason I'm still considered a "programmer" is because "Configurer" doesnt exactly roll off the tongue.

Doing real programming for half as long or so started with Turbo Pascal, but due to being under 40.

I don't see a difference between a module I get from Crestron and a DLL I download from github is all. I am trying to understand why you wouldn't see it the same way.

I don't consider SIMPL to be "real coding" which is really why I am rusty as all hell, but I still consider it programming.

The guys who make MMOs and place assets by clicking and using drop down menus are still programming.

All the guys I known, and all 3 gals, consider what we do in Crestron to be programming. We think of everything we do from our modules to architecture as IP, if the issue that we are discussing is how to protect our IP and why custom then first we have to recognize that what we are doing IS programming and the second is that IR, 232, and IP APIs need to be removed from compiled code.

Our modules etc, should just make function calls to a file and that file, as long as the name stays the same can be changed by any CI.

You talked about downloading and using AMX modules, then said you'd be upset if someone used yours. In doing so, you did not address permissions, so the criticism is valid for exactly what you said. (I quote this below.)


The dollar theater comparison does not jibe.
They showed scratched-up prints eight months to a year after release in a theater with sticky floors and, well, often operative seating, usually with no large tape patches. Snack choice was limited. Bathrooms smelled of urine. And are you saying this is the way you deliver to the subsequent customers? That's why this comparison fails.

No, I'm asking if, once you put in 1200 hours to develop a module, you charge the first customer for 1200 hours of work. And then charge all the others the same amount. Or you charge much less than 1200 hours' worth of labor to the first customer, even though you may never use the module again -- there's no way to foresee this for all modules.


Okay, back to configuration versus programming. If >YOU< wrote the module, then that's programming. I have no problem with that.

But the next time you use that module, you don't write it again, so from that point on it is configuring. Right? If not, why is using something that someone else programmed not also considered programming?

Do you charge the same amount for configuring and for programming?

I don't know that this is an issue that really deserves any attention. It's just that a distinction has been made but it might not really be clear as to what's what.

because AMX (or Control4, Or Crestron)provides their drivers free of charge to all dealers/programmers. There is nothing proprietary about it.
I do NOT provide my drivers to AMX. or anyone else for that matter.

its apples and oranges. AMX provides a library of drivers. If they didnt have the driver I needed, I would write one for my application.


correct, the second time you are using the module or profile you wrote you are indeed configuring it in that system.


not usually.


Its not nearly as big an issue as folks are making it out to be here. I dont think it is anyway. Not many companies are reinventing the wheel with their control protocol nowadays and popular components have drivers very quickly.

Bottom line is that right now, "Programmer" is a all encompassing title for anyone that does any kind of control system setup whether you are doing line code or connecting dots.

It doesn't really bother me what people want to consider themselves either.

what does bug me a bit is when people are setting up a pretty basic system and they ant to act like they need to spend dozens of hours "programming" it to make it work.

Do you charge the same amount for the first customer to use this, and then the same for all subsequent customers who use it?


Yes, and those are the folks who not only spend a great deal of time to get even a half-reasonable system. They are also not capable of making anything better than a half-reasonable system.

It happens so rarely nowadays I cant even answer that.

Back in the day when Writing profiles was a weekly occurrence, it depended on what I was writing.

If it was a device we knew we would use over and over again, the cost of writing that module would get divided among projected uses.

If it was a device that was most likely we would never use again, they paid the full development costs.



sometimes. Most of the time, I think they like to keep up the facade that they are overworked and underpaid. (Which they may be anyway..... but not because it takes 8 hours to "write a program" to control a surround sound system with a few extra rooms of audio.....)

+1

From my point of view it comes down to those who do not program not understand or care about what programmers do. Because it's assumed that nothing in anyone's code has value aside from making that system work. Let's give an example that might make this clear. Some of the better Savant firms roll their own solutions using Savant as the front end but that include drivers for Crestron DM and Crestron TSTATs. That means they have included drivers for something 99% of Savant dealers cannot do and implemented a solution the best consultants have advised us to devise. If that "custom" solution is now available to any and everyone you have just stolen or fallen into one of the few methods one firm has to differentiate itself from its competitors while avoiding the race to the bottom.

The fact is most every firm does not do this but it doesn't mean it does not happen. What we see by non-programmers is they devalue, even dislike programmers and the value they bring to a job. Some of that is intelligence. Some of it is ignorance and in all cases it's unhappiness with a line item that seems unnecessary. But any experienced salespuke or tech knows how much a good coder brings to the job. Having your IP in the hands of your competitor is not a good thing, especially as so many of you hire out your programming. This situation could be solved if manufacturers offered methods to protect that property.

We have clients who like free stuff, techs and salespukes who either don't care or just want that line item to be as low as possible ( but also be as cool as possible and include every possible feature someone with 3 months experience thinks should be delivered ). No one is demanding manufacturers provide some method of protecting that property and they don't want to spend any engineering time providing that protection.

The selfish, self-centered ignorance is sad. Commercial does not pay "more" than resi for code. It tends to be simpler because you can reuse the same code. Rare is it I have to redo a commercial GUI. Rare is it I don't have to do it in resi. Why comment on what you do not know? Because we all have opinions and no matter how ignorant they must be right. How many here are aware that too many educational institutions, you know those who teach morality to students, take possession of the code from an installation firm and roll out 40 other rooms for which they do not pay? How many know that installation firms know this and find ways to prevent this theft? Why would anyone want their modes for doing this in the public domain and so easily neutered?

What every one of you are arguing is that free, unpaid stuff is the best and nothing should be done to change this. You don't have access to manufacturering code. That's different, right? But is it? It's not only modules. It is the way in which systems are configured and the graphics developed for that UI. None of which seems to be understood and none of which is ever proprietary to a single job. In no job is programming EVER paid for in hours.

After reading through this thread a few times (as more posts were made) I do agree with arguments on both sides of the fence.

I think most people here can agree that these ideologies and company business standards can coexist, however we must communicate our stance or policy with the client or representative, using whatever method suits your company and brand, etc.

They should have the tools needed to seek council on your policy and make an informed decision.

If you cannon represent being honest about your policy to your clients then there are other problems brewing.

Who cares? The way C4's stock keeps falling, none of this is going to matter soon any way.

Bingo! Never met a happy C4 customer, only frustrated.

I think you have to attribute that to the dealer that set the system up and program/configured it (there, that should appease everyone). I have mostly met people that despise Crestron. But I realize I am there because they had a bad experience with their past integrator. I know that in the right hands, that same Crestron system would have blown them away.