Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #16033

Re: Nice little Forth article

Show all headers | View raw

"Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote in message
news:qoCdnbHXTbsQbuzNnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Hugh Aguilar"  wrote in message
> > news:1c972ea2-59db-4cbb-8abf-6bb52ed5d589@g7g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 6, 11:42 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://toddbot.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-forth-still-matters-in-this.html
> >>
> >> Thanks to JohnnyBritish.
> >
> > His point is that Forth is better for small low-power systems than C
> > is. This helps when you are doing the project as a hobby and your
> > "copious free time" is limited. Forth-vs-C is not an issue with
> > commercial projects because they are going to be written in assembly-
> > language, and they will use a much smaller processor than Forth or C
> > could run on (typically 128 bytes of data memory and 2K of code
> > memory). Even though the programming is done in assembly rather than a
> > high-level language, the cost of programming will still be only a tiny
> > fraction of the total cost of the project. The programming may get
> > done by the electrical engineer, in which case the cost of programming
> > is $0 because no programmer was hired.
>
> You don't pay the EE for his or her time spent programming?
>

No, I think the EE still gets paid in that scenario.  It's just that his/her
pay for progamming isn't part of the "cost of programming" for the project
according to Hugh's accounting methods, or perhaps those of a prior
employer.

;-)

> I wonder.  I've been doing embedded work since the late 70's.  In all that
> time, on all those projects, the programming (except for programmable
> logic) was done my programmers.  Early on in assembler, later most of it
> in an embedded dialect of C or PL/M.  I've known EEs who could program,
> but I don't recall one who wouldn't defer to a full time programmer, if
> that programmer was hardware knowledgeable.

My experience is that EEs are good with hardware and CSs aren't so good. The
concepts needed for programming hardware, mostly developed by EEs, elude CSs
somewhat.  Once a CS major has to start thinking about electricity,
currents, voltages, or even things like endianness or data bus size, you've
lost them.


Rod Pemberton

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Nice little Forth article Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-06 11:42 -0700
  Re: Nice little Forth article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-06 10:23 -1000
  Re: Nice little Forth article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-06 17:56 -0400
    Re: Nice little Forth article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-06 12:41 -1000
      Re: Nice little Forth article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-06 18:10 -0700
    Re: Nice little Forth article Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-06 23:54 -0700
      Re: Nice little Forth article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-07 19:14 -0400
      Re: Nice little Forth article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-10 19:19 -0700
  Re: Nice little Forth article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-06 20:30 -0700
    Re: Nice little Forth article "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> - 2012-10-07 17:26 -0400
      Re: Nice little Forth article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-07 20:02 -0400
        Re: Nice little Forth article "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> - 2012-10-09 08:35 -0400
      Re: Nice little Forth article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-10 19:27 -0700
        Re: Nice little Forth article "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> - 2012-10-11 08:28 -0400
          Re: Nice little Forth article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-11 08:06 -1000
          Re: Nice little Forth article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-14 16:17 +1000
            Re: Nice little Forth article Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-14 13:41 +0000
              Re: Nice little Forth article Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-14 09:51 -0700
                Re: Nice little Forth article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-14 10:41 -0700
                Re: Nice little Forth article Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-14 22:28 +0200
                Re: Nice little Forth article Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-14 13:39 -0700
                Re: Nice little Forth article Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-14 19:42 +0200
                Re: Nice little Forth article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-14 20:02 -0400
                Re: Nice little Forth article Sara Cruz <iluv2hugg@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 19:45 -0700
                Re: Nice little Forth article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-17 20:20 -0700
                Re: Nice little Forth article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-18 11:39 -0500
                Re: Nice little Forth article Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-18 18:53 +0200
                Re: Nice little Forth article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-19 18:58 -0700
                Re: Nice little Forth article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-20 18:08 -0400
  Re: Nice little Forth article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-10 08:23 +1000
    Re: Nice little Forth article Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 09:15 -0700

csiph-web