Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Rubin Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Was just wondering when people started using C to write forth languages and not assembly? Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 20:38:58 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 18 Message-ID: <874m9pigtp.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com> References: <622db793-14c4-48e5-a732-686c0b759db5@googlegroups.com> <2016May19.170745@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <2016May20.144448@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <86zirkkge2.fsf@molnjunk.nocrew.org> <573f14dc.154153604@news.eternal-september.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c5ef8e90944559a2c1f3d45645d0f786"; logging-data="23439"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/dHwg6uwhf1sYnj40wHE7c" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:2bEbPinqegek+QRYnjjlRA6aESc= sha1:Ew6AUKl95V31xydnHpVDW7p1Ywc= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:47430 Raimond Dragomir writes: > For mid-end embedded systems C is the only way. Don't tell me you will > implement file systems, tcp/ip stacks, USB stacks, Wireless stacks in > assembly... Until not that long ago, an embedded system with that much stuff would have been considered high end. Mid-end would be something capable of running interactive Forth, e.g. Atmega128 or so. Low end would be a tiny PIC with a 0.5k of code space and few dozen bytes of ram. I wonder if Forth was even ever intended to write systems of that complexity. Remember Chuck's adage that 1000 instructions is enough to write any program. I doubt that the NRAO system had tcp/ip stacks, USB stacks, wireless, etc. Elizabeth if you're here: this may have come up before, but do you remember about how much total Forth code went into the Saudi airport system?