Groups > comp.lang.forth > #19907

Re: Integer cosine function

From	Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Integer cosine function
Date	2013-02-22 15:56 +0100
Organization	1&1 Internet AG
Message-ID	<kg80vi$od3$1@online.de> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <89bb98a3-8bb7-4fc3-a0f6-00d3a7f2754e@googlegroups.com> <kfu0r6$96g$1@online.de> <7532b5f1-3390-4449-b16d-ff147eb50d76@googlegroups.com> <kg52g7$abo$1@online.de> <nNidnRZYFv0c3LrMnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@supernews.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Andrew Haley wrote:
> You need to point that arrow of reasoning back at yourself, though:
> you don't like the 8051, so you consider people who choose it to be
> irrational!

I've had no exposure to the 8051 before that project, I was completely 
agnostic at that point of time.  I started to hate it when I saw what kind 
of crap it was.  The b16 came into existence as I was motivated to do 
something better, and it took me only *days* to do so.  I struggled about 
half a year with the various IPs from Inventra (8051, debugger, USB, and 
writing test code in 8051 assembler), only to glue them together.

I've ported Gforth to a competitor of the 8051, the R8C, it took a week to 
get Gforth up and running.  It is a nice CPU.  I also like the msp430.  
There are nice CPUs in the 8051 ballpark out there, and there is crapware 
like the 8051, and it *does* impact my productivity.  After I'm slowed down 
for enough time, I start to get emotional.

> The truth is that all of us make decisions for emotional
> reasons and save our intellectual firepower to construct elaborate
> rationalizations to justify them.

Yes, after struggling half a year with utter crap, I have emotional reasons.  
It wouldn't have taken half a year it it wasn't crap.  Part of the crappy 
feeling of course was the Inventra implementation, which looked like some 
beginner from India wrote it (it couldn't talk to synchronos SRAM, and all 
the SRAM blocks you can compile are synchronous, because synchronous is the 
right way to do it), the other part of the "this is crap" feeling came from 
writing test code in assembler.  This CPU is certainly not the best of 
breed.  And I have seen many CPUs.

And then I talked to the consultant who wrote a significant part of the 
firmware.  She complained about the crappy Keil compiler, the half-working 
debugger, and that there are better CPUs out there...  And of course, we 
were accused of producing crap, too.  Because the debugger had some flaws, 
which we did somehow overcome at our side, but the people who used it 
together with the Keil didn't, and finally, they got some support from the 
subcontractors who made the debugger for Inventra (it was all outsourced, 
Inventra did nothing themselves)...  because the Keil interface to that 
debugger really didn't work.

Well, the decision makers have never seen any other CPU.  Their boss at the 
beginning thought about using ARM, but ARM was too big and therefore too 
expensive.  Their boss didn't like the 8051 at all, but they also blocked 
his decision to go 0.35µ instead of 0.5µ, because his disciples thought, it 
would be too difficult to generate the 3.3V on-chip (which we had to 
generate anyways, because it was an USB device - and USB logic level is 
3.3V.  Doh!).

In so far, I completely trust my gut feelings.  This isn't stupidity when we 
get emotional.  For fun, we later always included the 8051 in our decision 
sheets, with performance and size of the Inventra implementation, and it 
never was a viable competitor.

Have I mentioned that the complete team we worked together with has been 
sacked when the chip finally went into mass production?  The new people 
caring for the product were at first reluctand to talk to us, but they soon 
figured out that it wasn't us who were the jerks ;-).  It was just a 
slightly violation of the USB signal spec, and when they approached us, my 
response was "yes, we know this, yes, we can fix this, and yes, we already 
talked about this, and your predecessors didn't want us to fix it."

With a more 21st century approach, I would say that emotions is what gives 
us drive.  It is our brain which decides, and we need emotions to get these 
decisions through, so our brain generates these emotions.  And yes, we make 
"rational" arguments, because following Descartes, we are supposed to be 
rational beings.  But when those arguments turn out to be factually wrong, 
we usually don't redecide.  We stick to our emotions, because they provide 
more drive than a rational argument.  The question wether we came to this 
conclusion through an evidence-based approach or through other approaches 
doesn't matter.  It is probably provable that any thinking thing can't be 
understood from the inside.

http://xkcd.com/1163/

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

Thread

Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-16 07:35 -0800
  Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-02-17 13:57 +0200
    Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-17 09:40 -0600
      Re: Integer cosine function "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-02-17 07:51 -1000
        Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-02-17 19:06 +0200
          Re: Integer cosine function anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-02-18 14:46 +0000
          Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-19 20:01 +0100
            Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-02-19 21:34 +0200
              Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-19 21:46 +0100
            Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-19 15:55 -0800
              Re: Integer cosine function Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2013-02-21 00:59 +0100
        Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-18 09:19 -0800
          Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-18 14:27 -0500
          Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-18 20:53 +0100
            Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-18 19:10 -0800
              Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-19 13:13 +0100
              Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-19 23:04 -0500
            Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-02-20 10:00 -0800
              Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-21 13:04 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 19:03 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 02:45 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-22 02:32 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 16:01 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 22:07 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-23 10:27 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-22 03:59 -0600
                Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-22 02:30 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 15:56 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-22 16:13 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 17:45 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-22 18:44 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 19:19 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 14:43 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-23 01:30 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 21:51 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-24 01:43 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-02-25 17:55 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-25 21:01 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-25 23:22 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-26 15:11 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-27 08:05 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-27 22:14 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-27 22:56 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:37 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-03-07 13:12 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-28 08:00 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:38 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-02-28 16:55 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:38 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-04 11:08 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-04 03:39 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-04 20:49 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-03-05 10:20 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-07 00:12 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-08 04:21 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-04 20:50 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-05 07:16 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-06 17:56 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-07 00:24 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-07 07:34 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-02-28 12:57 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-28 17:07 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-28 19:37 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-03-01 10:56 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-01 13:52 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 17:48 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-03-13 17:44 -0400
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:36 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-01 19:14 -1000
                Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-03-02 09:34 +0200
                Re: Integer cosine function kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2013-03-02 09:06 -0600
                Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-26 08:53 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-26 16:59 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-02-27 00:52 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-27 04:07 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 20:51 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 17:58 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-06 16:39 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 14:21 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-07 00:11 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-06 23:44 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 16:24 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-07 01:59 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 19:48 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-07 16:22 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 23:37 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-23 09:54 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 21:03 +0000
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 15:59 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 16:38 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-22 12:07 -0600
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 19:39 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-02-22 09:23 -1000
                Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-23 04:44 -0600
                Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 13:00 -0800
                Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-23 01:09 +0100
                Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 21:16 -0500
                Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 20:28 -0500
  Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-02-27 07:59 -0800
    Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-27 08:48 -0800
      Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-02-27 10:23 -0800
      Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-03-15 10:14 -0700
        Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-03-15 13:19 -0700
          Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-03-15 13:28 -0700
            Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-03-15 21:13 -0700

csiph-web