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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #19931

Re: Integer cosine function

From Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de>
Newsgroups comp.lang.forth
Subject Re: Integer cosine function
Date 2013-02-23 01:30 +0100
Organization 1&1 Internet AG
Message-ID <kg92jf$g5g$1@online.de> (permalink)
References (8 earlier) <nNidnRZYFv0c3LrMnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@supernews.com> <kg80vi$od3$1@online.de> <slrnkif6cd.db8.zbigniew2011REMOVE@Tichy.myhome.org> <kg87bo$ss9$1@online.de> <55e44f69-28e2-41ee-8248-4f0bd54b114a@l13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Hugh Aguilar wrote:

> On Feb 22, 9:45 am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Zbiggy wrote:
>> > In comp.lang.forth, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>> >> 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.
> 
> This is utter nonsense! You don't port GForth to anything

I'm talking about Gforth EC, which is a "traditional" all Forth+assembler 
controller Forth.  It reuses the Forth part of Gforth (slimmed down a bit), 
and does the stuff that are primitives in C in a mixture of assembler (real 
primitive) and Forth (replacement code).  The problem with you is that you 
have some emotional reasons against Gforth, and therefore you ignore all 
facts about it.

> --- you
> (actually, somebody smart) ports GCC to new processors --- then, all
> of the GCC programs (including GForth) get dragged along with it. The
> whole point of writing GForth in C rather than assembly-language was
> to dump the work of porting to new processors onto the GCC guys, and
> lift this heavy burden from the bony-unmuscled shoulders of the GForth
> community.

Haha.  That's where GCC does have a backend.  For processors where it 
doesn't it goes back to the strong shoulders of the Gforth community.

Well, maybe the C backend was the wrong choice in the long run.  In the 
short run, 20 years ago, with its many RISC processors, it seemed to be a 
good choice.  The RISC processors died one after the other, and nowadays, 
it's x64 and ARM, and a little MIPS.

> It seems wrong that you should call the 8051 or anything else "crap"
> --- GForth is truly crap, as it runs about an order of magnitude too
> slow for any serious application

Come back with your toyforth when it is 10 times faster than gforth-fast, 
then we can discuss about that.  Neither VFX nor iForth are a factor 10 
faster than gforth-fast.  Whatever you did when you measured Gforth, you had 
bad karma.

> All in all, the 8051 was a very good design for its day. The only bad
> thing about the 8051 was that it didn't support high-level languages
> very well, but that really wasn't what it was designed for.

Fully agreed.  But when your customer wants to deliberately use a HLL for 
his application, then chosing the 8051 is stupid.  And it wasn't a PLC-like 
controller, it was something that had to do calculations most of the time.

> Within the
> context that it was designed, it was the best --- it still is, as the
> world hasn't gotten much more complicated since the 1980s, and many
> applications are no bigger or more complicated now than they were
> then.

Fine.  But that context is PLC-like control, as you figured out.  It's not 
crap for that context, but that wasn't the context I (and our customer) used 
embedded controllers in.

> Intel made an effort to make their processor industry-standard, and
> they succeeded wonderfully. For one thing, they just stuck with it
> forever, rather than change the design every few years. They added
> features, such as more memory and faster speed, without losing
> compatibility.
> 
> By comparison, Motorola would come out with a new-and-improved
> processor every few years, and they alienated their customers. Nobody
> wants to learn a new assembly-language and rewrite all of their code
> periodically, without any significant step up in capability (besides
> that, if the old stuff was working, then the customer wasn't demanding
> any new capability anyway).

Yes, Intel really is good at maintaining compatibility.  You still can run 
your 8080 code through a special assembler, and run it on an x86.  Core i7, 
if you like, and it will work.  Out of the box.  Our customer had the same 
argument, i.e. software reuse.  It was software written in C, and it was 
completely rewritten from scratch for that project.  What?  No 8051 
assembler legacy?  Yes.  So why choose an 8051?

For that customer, the b16 wouldn't have been the right choice, either, 
because there's no C compiler for it.  The b16 is only right when you 
program it in Forth.  The ARM suggested from upper management would have 
been a better choice.

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

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

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