Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #17381 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-11-19 16:03 +0000 |
| Last post | 2012-11-29 11:47 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 180 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 16:03 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 16:06 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? daveyrotten <danw8804@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 08:15 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 12:07 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-20 02:27 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Winston19842005 <winston19842005@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-19 21:59 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-19 19:21 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 01:33 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-20 05:09 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 18:48 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-20 09:49 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 10:59 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-19 19:06 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-19 14:25 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-19 20:29 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-20 05:42 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:23 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-20 21:05 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 14:24 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 18:24 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-20 03:07 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:35 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-20 21:02 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-21 02:04 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-20 19:21 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-21 01:34 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-21 04:51 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-21 04:43 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-11-21 20:34 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-21 12:04 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-22 21:19 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-23 02:05 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-23 03:05 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-23 03:22 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-23 12:13 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-23 12:24 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-23 10:43 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-23 15:10 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-23 13:40 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-23 13:44 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-24 01:29 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-24 04:54 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-24 16:56 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-25 04:16 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-26 14:48 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-23 09:12 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 22:00 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 03:52 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-23 07:34 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-23 09:57 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 20:09 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-24 04:53 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-24 14:32 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-24 21:01 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-25 02:22 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-25 02:27 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-11-23 19:12 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 22:39 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-11-24 16:54 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-11-25 05:09 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-11-25 13:33 +0200
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-24 12:20 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-24 20:45 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-25 02:21 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-21 14:38 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-21 18:17 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-23 04:26 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-11-23 15:28 +0200
Re: why bother with standards ? awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-11-21 17:29 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:21 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-21 13:00 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 14:31 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-21 17:41 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-21 20:33 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Humphries <mwh@intranetsys.com> - 2012-11-22 10:00 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-22 17:16 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:12 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-11-20 17:30 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 17:48 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2012-11-20 19:40 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 19:50 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-20 15:41 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 14:43 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-21 08:46 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-11-20 14:09 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-24 10:41 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-24 11:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-24 22:32 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-25 07:54 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-25 17:02 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-25 16:20 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-25 19:44 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-26 14:59 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-26 11:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-26 13:05 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-26 15:29 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-26 16:38 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-26 19:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-26 20:29 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-26 22:22 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-26 23:03 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-27 01:09 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-27 08:52 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-27 10:43 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-27 12:01 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-28 23:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-29 00:00 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-28 22:13 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 01:11 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2012-11-29 11:00 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-29 18:58 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 12:51 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-30 00:42 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 19:57 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 02:22 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-30 18:47 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-30 12:53 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-30 18:33 +0100
Debuggers (Re: why bother with standards ?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-11-29 13:44 +0000
Re: Debuggers (Re: why bother with standards ?) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 09:36 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-29 06:01 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 10:00 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-29 12:22 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 10:38 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-11-29 21:13 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-29 17:11 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-30 03:37 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-30 02:11 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-11-30 05:24 -0600
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-30 11:23 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2012-11-29 21:16 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-29 08:38 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-29 18:43 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-29 12:15 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 09:23 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-29 18:24 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 11:06 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-29 17:35 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 22:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-29 21:08 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-30 17:41 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-11-30 08:43 -1000
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 02:30 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-30 10:40 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-11-30 14:03 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-30 14:06 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-11-30 14:51 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-11-30 14:58 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-02 18:02 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-12-03 16:34 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-12-03 21:39 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-03 14:49 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-12-05 09:24 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-05 11:26 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-05 11:39 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-12-05 15:32 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-05 20:57 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-12-05 18:55 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-12-05 20:01 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-12-06 19:05 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-12-06 16:14 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Bill Marcum <bill@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-12-07 20:13 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-12-03 14:29 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 02:20 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-11-30 06:52 -0500
Re: why bother with standards ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-11-29 19:12 +0100
Re: why bother with standards ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-11-29 14:55 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-11-26 22:01 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-27 01:44 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-11-21 12:40 +1100
Re: why bother with standards ? Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-11-21 14:51 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-21 19:24 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-11-21 21:54 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-11-24 08:03 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-11-30 14:45 +1100
Re: why bother with standards ? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-11-30 10:48 +0000
Re: why bother with standards ? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-12-04 03:52 +1100
Re: why bother with standards ? The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 10:34 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? The Beez <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2012-12-06 10:37 -0800
Re: why bother with standards ? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2012-11-29 11:47 -0800
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 19:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20121120195013976-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #17440 |
> And, of course, as soon as you enter the world of GUI with its mice and > windows and menus, synchronous designs run out of gas quickly. > > Andy Having designed and built upteen GUI's over the years, the underlying input system, streams or otherwise don't come into it ! If it does your doing it wrong ! Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 15:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <90dedb0d-3c05-4e65-a4d2-1678bafa1f02@bq2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17441 |
On Nov 20, 7:50 pm, Chris Hinsley <chris.hins...@gmail.com> wrote: > > And, of course, as soon as you enter the world of GUI with its mice and > > windows and menus, synchronous designs run out of gas quickly. > > > Andy > > Having designed and built upteen GUI's over the years, the underlying > input system, streams or otherwise don't come into it ! If it does your > doing it wrong ! > > Chris So how do your GUIs get their input, and do their output?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 14:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2012112114431675788-chrishinsley@gmailcom> |
| In reply to | #17445 |
On 2012-11-20 23:41:12 +0000, Alex McDonald said: > On Nov 20, 7:50 pm, Chris Hinsley <chris.hins...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> And, of course, as soon as you enter the world of GUI with its mice and >>> windows and menus, synchronous designs run out of gas quickly. >> >>> Andy >> >> Having designed and built upteen GUI's over the years, the underlying >> input system, streams or otherwise don't come into it ! If it does your >> doing it wrong ! >> >> Chris > > So how do your GUIs get their input, and do their output? Well they are feed from input devices at the low level, some OS's cook that into a stream before you get to see it, some don't. I've generaly had a task that 'reads' the keyboard or mouse and injects events, into an object tree that represents the display heirachry. Last one I did I used my own implamentation of Sarah Thomas's C++ sig/slots stuff, I fixed a few bugs and simplified her design somewhat, plus added a few missing features. That worked quite well, and I was thinking of implamenting something similar in Forth for the GUI stuff this time. Game GUI's don't general use this approach ! I've done several game ui's that actually consist of 'live' animation objects and the collision system is how user input if feed into the system. But underneath that there was still the tasks that read the keyboard map or the mouse serial port data and cooked it into a collision event. Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-21 08:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <198c3920-fd7c-4b5e-80ad-c40dc9d8771f@eo2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17462 |
On Nov 21, 2:43 pm, Chris Hinsley <chris.hins...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2012-11-20 23:41:12 +0000, Alex McDonald said: > > > On Nov 20, 7:50 pm, Chris Hinsley <chris.hins...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> And, of course, as soon as you enter the world of GUI with its mice and > >>> windows and menus, synchronous designs run out of gas quickly. > > >>> Andy > > >> Having designed and built upteen GUI's over the years, the underlying > >> input system, streams or otherwise don't come into it ! If it does your > >> doing it wrong ! > > >> Chris > > > So how do your GUIs get their input, and do their output? > > Well they are feed from input devices at the low level, some OS's cook > that into a stream before you get to see it, some don't. I've generaly > had a task that 'reads' the keyboard or mouse and injects events, into > an object tree that represents the display heirachry. Last one I did I > used my own implamentation of Sarah Thomas's C++ sig/slots stuff, I > fixed a few bugs and simplified her design somewhat, plus added a few > missing features. That worked quite well, and I was thinking of > implamenting something similar in Forth for the GUI stuff this time. > > Game GUI's don't general use this approach ! I've done several game > ui's that actually consist of 'live' animation objects and the > collision system is how user input if feed into the system. But > underneath that there was still the tasks that read the keyboard map or > the mouse serial port data and cooked it into a collision event. > > Chris No, I meant (to use your example); where does the app get its animation object data from? How does it store this data if the app is "saved"? At bottom, GUIs are a front end for an engine that computes on data, and not all that data will come from the GUI. That aside, I'm interested in why you think Forth's mechanism of handling the "stream" to parse is difficult to understand. It does exactly what you might expect. You start with a terminal, include a file, which may include others and so on until it returns to the terminal. Or you run a script from the command line, which include a file and so on until it returns to the command line. The parser breaks this stream up into words and presents them one at a a time to the compiler, which either executes them or compiles them, depending on state. I'm not clear on what you expect here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-20 14:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <01a8e5c4-d4f9-4776-8fe5-55bc24a6f691@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17440 |
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 12:40:44 PM UTC-7, Andy Valencia wrote: > > You'd think this would be great, but it doesn't work out in the > general case. There's a lot more flexibility if you design for > event driven I/O. So rather than take a "file" object (descriptor, > FILE *, whatever) and synchronously read() it, you have an input > dispatcher which gets invoked with the next input. > I dunno, if your Forth interpreter runs in its own thread, does it matter? Your GUI can jam keyboard input into a shared buffer, and the interpreter can take all the time it wants to process INCLUDED files. The GUI doesn't hang in the mean time. I tried EVALUATing a line at a time in a Windows app. Didn't work, since stacks inside a callback go away when the callback exits. The stream stack would eliminate a lot of complexity. The only drawback is memory size, since each stack element needs to have a big enough TIB to handle whatever source you throw at it. You could also use the stream stack as a place to put LEAVEs when compiling DO LOOP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-24 10:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xr4nidet5.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17434 |
Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> writes: > I am uncomfatable with aspects of the standard, increasingly so as I > have been moving from implamenting a Forth compiler to starting to > build what I'm after as an end result. I think there is value to standardization not just for program portability but for programmer portability if you use more than one system. I got an MSP430 TI Launchpad recently, so I wrote some code last night using gforth on my pc, with the idea of porting to 4e4th (Camelforth) on the Launchpad later. Immediately I see that I'm going to be faced with headaches remembering which words work in gforth and which ones work in 4e4th. 4e4th has some non-ANSI-isms that seem kind of gratuitous to me and I think it would be better if both systems followed the standard, to make moving between them easier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-24 11:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <76b48d41-7d15-4214-ac01-8fd1742a73d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17526 |
On Saturday, November 24, 2012 1:41:11 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote: > Chris Hinsley <chris> writes: > I am uncomfatable with aspects of the standard, increasingly so as I > have been moving from implamenting a Forth compiler to starting to > buld what I'm after as an end result. I think there is value to standardization not just for program portability but for programmer portability if you use more than one system. I got an MSP430 TI Launchpad recently, so I wrote some code last night using gforth on my pc, with the idea of porting to 4e4th (Camelforth) on the Launchpad later. Immediately I see that I'm going to be faced with headaches remembering which words work in gforth and which ones work in 4e4th. 4e4th has some non-ANSI-isms that seem kind of gratuitous to me and I think it would be better if both systems followed the standard, to make moving between them easier. As far as I know Camelforth and 4e4th are touted to follow the ANSI standard. Please name these non-ANSI-isms which you have found!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-24 22:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xr4nikx9o.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17527 |
visualforth@rocketmail.com writes: > As far as I know Camelforth and 4e4th are touted to follow the ANSI standard. > Please name these non-ANSI-isms which you have found! Here are a few: - the WORD primitive in 4e4th (according to the glossary pdf, I haven't checked the source code or tested it) has signature ( char -- c-addr n ) i.e. it results in address + count. The gforth version and the ANS spec say it's supposed to return a pointer to a counted string, i.e. the signature is ( char -- c-addr ) I think 4e4th's version of WORD is what ANS calls PARSE. 4e4th doesn't appear to have anything called PARSE, which is an ext-core word in ANS. - The STRING extensions are annoyingly only partway present. CMOVE and CMOVE> are there but COMPARE is not there. There are nonstandard words S= and N= that appear to do something similar, but the difference between them isn't explained.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-25 07:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bc1a7360-83bb-4b39-9b24-3f725bf9b0ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17538 |
On Sunday, November 25, 2012 1:32:52 AM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote: > visualforth.com writes: > As far as I know Camelforth and 4e4th are touted to follow the ANSI standard. > Please name these non-ANSI-isms which you have found! Here are a few: - the WORD primitive in 4e4th (according to the glossary pdf, I haven't checked the source code or tested it) has signature ( char -- c-addr n ) i.e. it results in address + count. The gforth version and the ANS spec say it's supposed to return a pointer to a counted string, i.e. the signature is ( char -- c-addr ) I think 4e4th's version of WORD is what ANS calls PARSE. 4e4th doesn't appear to have anything called PARSE, which is an ext-core word in ANS. - The STRING extensions are annoyingly only partway present. CMOVE and CMOVE> are there but COMPARE is not there. There are nonstandard words S= and N= that appear to do something similar, but the difference between them isn't explained. Thanks, Paul! 4E4th has been tested with a Forth-Verifier, but I will check what's going on there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-25 17:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <42cff32b-2ccb-4d3a-8fa7-6f23f0ebb9a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17553 |
> On Sunday, November 25, 2012 1:32:52 AM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote: >> visualforth.com writes: >> As far as I know Camelforth and 4e4th are touted to follow the ANSI standard. >> Please name these non-ANSI-isms which you have found! > Here are a few: - the WORD primitive in 4e4th (according to the glossary pdf, I haven't checked the source code or tested it) has signature ( char -- c-addr n ) i.e. it results in address + count. The gforth version and the ANS spec say it's supposed to return a pointer to a counted string, i.e. the signature is ( char -- c-addr ) I think 4e4th's version of WORD is what ANS calls PARSE. 4e4th doesn't appear to have anything called PARSE, which is an ext-core word in ANS. > The STRING extensions are annoyingly only partway present. CMOVE and CMOVE> are there but COMPARE is not there. There are nonstandard words S= and N= that appear to do something similar, but the difference between them isn't explained. Thanks, Paul! 4E4th has been tested with a Forth-Verifier, but I will check what's going on there. Here are the results: The behavior of the word is correct, but the stack comment is wrong. This error goes back to the original CamelForth/MSP430 source code and will be fixed in an upcoming release. PARSE will be added to the next release of CamelForth/MSP430, though this is an extension word and not required for a minimal ANSI Forth - therefore it will not be with the educational 4E4th because of memory constraints. S= is a string compare with both strings in Data space. N= (Name-equal) is a string compare with one string in Data space and the other in Code or Header space; this is for Harvard architectures (e.g. 8051) and multiple-segment architectures (e.g. 8086). On the MSP430 N= and S= are equivalent - therefore N= will be removed from 4E4th to save memory space. Thanks! The function of S= is slightly different from COMPARE -- COMPARE takes two lengths, and S= takes only one. Paul, you wrote "Here are a few:" - are there more? Would be really helpful if you let us know about your findings. Critics and suggestions are always welcome!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-25 16:20 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <Z8-dndGO9vmRTy_NnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #17560 |
On 11/25/12 3:02 PM, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote: ... > S= is a string compare with both strings in Data space. N= (Name-equal) > is a string compare with one string in Data space and the other in Code > or Header space; this is for Harvard architectures (e.g. 8051) and > multiple-segment architectures (e.g. 8086). On the MSP430 N= and S= are > equivalent - therefore N= will be removed from 4E4th to save memory space. Thanks! > > The function of S= is slightly different from COMPARE -- COMPARE takes two lengths, and S= takes only one. That sounds like -TEXT (pronounced "not-text" -- the dash looks kind of like a logical 'not' symbol) which takes two addresses and a length and returns 'true' if they are not equal for that length. It was widely used in polyFORTH's data base system, and for many other uses. We found that "true if no match" was much more useful than "true if match" (usually saved several words). Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-25 19:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7x4nkdc9kb.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17560 |
visualforth@rocketmail.com writes: > The behavior of the word is correct, but the stack comment is > wrong. This error... code and will be fixed in an upcoming release. Ah, great. > PARSE will be added to the next release of CamelForth/MSP430, though > this is an extension word and not required for a minimal ANSI Forth - > therefore it will not be with the educational 4E4th because of memory > constraints. I think PARSE is better for a memory constrained system and makes a natural factor of WORD, rather than the other way around (this was apparently discussed during the ANS process). The Launchpad is rather more severely constrained by RAM than code space, and the current 4e4th supposedly uses just 6k of the 16k of code space in the chip. The remaining 10k is enough space for quite a large program, probably larger than a typical educational user would write. So I think for educational purposes it may be better to supply more capabilities to make the learner's experience easier, even if it consumes a bit more of the code space, let's say up to 8k or even 10-12k. That allows adding major features like locals, an assembler, etc. By the time someone is advanced enough to fill the remaining space, they can probably rebuild the system themselves to make a minimal version if that's what they want. Or they could just move up to a board with a bigger processor. It would be nice if TI would put some of the fancier 432's into that DIP package so they would work in the Launchpad... > N= and S= are equivalent - therefore N= will be removed from > 4E4th to save memory space. Thanks! Why not get rid of both of them, and supply COMPARE, which is standard? Or implement S= using COMPARE, which is trivial. > Paul, you wrote "Here are a few:" - are there more? Would be really > helpful if you let us know about your findings. I'll let you know if anything else comes up. There were a few things I remembered that turned out to be wrong-- I may have confusing 4e4th with one of the other small Forths that I've been looking at. > Critics and suggestions are always welcome! It's a really nice effort, thanks for your part in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-26 14:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <50b383be$0$3148$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #17562 |
In article <7x4nkdc9kb.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >visualforth@rocketmail.com writes: >> The behavior of the word is correct, but the stack comment is >> wrong. This error... code and will be fixed in an upcoming release. > >Ah, great. > >> PARSE will be added to the next release of CamelForth/MSP430, though >> this is an extension word and not required for a minimal ANSI Forth - >> therefore it will not be with the educational 4E4th because of memory >> constraints. > >I think PARSE is better for a memory constrained system and makes a >natural factor of WORD, rather than the other way around (this was >apparently discussed during the ANS process). The Launchpad is rather >more severely constrained by RAM than code space, and the current 4e4th >supposedly uses just 6k of the 16k of code space in the chip. The >remaining 10k is enough space for quite a large program, probably larger >than a typical educational user would write. > >So I think for educational purposes it may be better to supply more >capabilities to make the learner's experience easier, even if it >consumes a bit more of the code space, let's say up to 8k or even >10-12k. That allows adding major features like locals, an assembler, >etc. > >By the time someone is advanced enough to fill the remaining space, they >can probably rebuild the system themselves to make a minimal version if >that's what they want. Or they could just move up to a board with a >bigger processor. It would be nice if TI would put some of the fancier >432's into that DIP package so they would work in the Launchpad... > >> N= and S= are equivalent - therefore N= will be removed from >> 4E4th to save memory space. Thanks! > >Why not get rid of both of them, and supply COMPARE, which is standard? >Or implement S= using COMPARE, which is trivial. S= -TEXT or CORA (as I call it) is more primitive, more useful and easier to use than COMPARE. > >> Paul, you wrote "Here are a few:" - are there more? Would be really >> helpful if you let us know about your findings. > >I'll let you know if anything else comes up. There were a few things I >remembered that turned out to be wrong-- I may have confusing 4e4th with >one of the other small Forths that I've been looking at. > >> Critics and suggestions are always welcome! > >It's a really nice effort, thanks for your part in it. Groetjes Albert -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-26 11:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <381f35d2-41b6-4e9f-8183-299d09eaf9ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17562 |
On Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:44:26 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote: > ... The Launchpad is rather more severely constrained by RAM than code space, and the current 4e4th supposedly uses just 6k of the 16k of code space in the chip. The 4e4th version which I am using occupies $1F20 = 7968 bytes - may be you have an older version. > The remaining 10k is enough space for quite a large program, probably larger than a typical educational user would write. The MSP430G2553 FLASH is divided in two parts of 8k each - 8k for the Forth system and 8k for the user. This is because of the bulk erasing constraints. > So I think for educational purposes it may be better to supply more capabilities to make the learner's experience easier, even if it consumes a bit more of the code space, let's say up to 8k or even 10-12k. 8k for the Forth system and 8 k for the user is an equal share. We decided this from early on. It doesn't make sense to have a Forth operating system larger than the user space. To make the learner's experience easier, we put a lot of goodies into our 4E4th-IDE. Our goal is to help newbees to get started with programming Forth on the MSP430 LaunchPad as easy as possible - no complicated toolchains, no monster IDE. The 4E4th-IDE needs only 4.4 MB on disk, including the FLASH programmer and support for the MSP430G2553 I/O constants - to download the IAR-IDE you need 1GB of disk space, 227 times as much. An Editor function is integrated to allow real straightforward incremental programming for one or more projects with one or more LaunchPads. > That allows adding major features like locals, an assembler, etc. There is no space to include locals. Newbees don't necessarily need an assembler. We are working on an assembler for download or as a cross assembler. > By the time someone is advanced enough to fill the remaining space, they can probably rebuild the system themselves to make a minimal version if that's what they want. Forth for Education - 4E4th - has been made to make programming an easy task for newbees - education to write programs using Forth, not education how to make another Forth. > Or they could just move up to a board with a bigger processor. Of course that's a possibility. The idea behind 4E4th is to encourage young people to use Forth. If they recognize the merits of Forth, they will look for Forth on microprocessors or microcontrollers of their choice - I hope there will be opportunities. We are focusing on TI's MSP430 line. > It would be nice if TI would put some of the fancier 432's into that DIP package so they would work in the Launchpad... We don't wait for this! > It's a really nice effort, thanks for your part in it. Thank you so much! Thanks for your suggestions and critics! DB.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-26 13:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xmwy4vzwa.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17579 |
visualforth@rocketmail.com writes: >> the current 4e4th supposedly uses just 6k of the 16k of code space in >> the chip. > The 4e4th version which I am using occupies $1F20 = 7968 bytes - may > be you have an older version. I'm going by the start page of the 4e4th wiki, which says 6k, though maybe that refers to the non-4e4th Camelforth, or to an old version of 4e4th. > The MSP430G2553 FLASH is divided in two parts of 8k each - 8k for the > Forth system and 8k for the user. This is because of the bulk erasing > constraints. Oh ok, I haven't examined how this works yet. My Launchpad is still in its box til I get some time to mess with it. > 8k for the Forth system and 8 k for the user is an equal share. We > decided this from early on. It doesn't make sense to have a Forth > operating system larger than the user space. Well, I don't know that it's inherently not sensible, but ok, 8k/8k is a reasonable sounding division. > we put a lot of goodies into our 4E4th-IDE. I didn't know about this IDE! I thought 4e4th was a standalone Forth that communicates with a terminal emulator, i.e. no host software to speak of. I certainly suggest updating the web site to describe the IDE. > The 4E4th-IDE needs only 4.4 MB on disk, including the FLASH >programmer and support for the MSP430G2553 I/O constants I have to wonder what even this 4.4MB is doing, and I hope it's not Windows dependent. > to download the IAR-IDE you need 1GB of disk space, Oh that sounds horrendous. You can run a complete Linux system with much less space than that. I figured I'd use the GCC toolchain for C stuff, and I expect that to be much smaller than 1GB as well. >> That allows adding major features like locals, an assembler, etc. > There is no space to include locals. I've been wondering how Forth locals are usually implemented. It might be possible to do them with very little memory. > Newbees don't necessarily need an assembler. I guess I don't consider this type of system to be suitable for a complete programming novice, who is better off with a more forgiving language (higher level features, less memory constraints, and extensive error checking with good diagnostic messages and debugging tools) that runs on a normal PC without external hardware. 4e4th seems like a great into to embedded microcontroller programming and that's how I've been thinking of it. Microcontroller programming is a particular niche in the programming world awhich I think is not really the right initial entry point to programming for most people. Someone getting involved with it probably ought to get some exposure to assemblers since they will likely need at least a little bit of it if they're developing actual microcontroller applications. > We are working on an assembler for download or as a cross assembler. An assembler in Forth that can be loaded into 4e4th would be great. If you're going to have a host-side application at all though, maybe it's time to think about a cross-compiled Forth. That gets the text interpreter out of the MSP430, so you can put more user friendliness into the (host-side) compiler, and it frees up lots of space in the target, so you can use the smaller Launchpad cpu (2k program space, 128 bytes ram) though you may have to shrink some memory areas like the stacks. It occurs to me something like this could be done in Javascript or Python pretty straightforwardly. There is already an ANS Forth in Javascript (JSForth) and the proposed ANS cross-compilation extensions look pretty simple. The Launchpad image would just have an address interpreter besides the existing code to communicate with the host. Or in a more ambitious system there could be a host-side native code compiler, either a real one, or some combination of subroutine threading and code templates for primitives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-26 15:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5fe50aa3-4ec8-4bd9-96bd-b5f9ef919776@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17581 |
On Monday, November 26, 2012 4:05:15 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote: > visualforth.com writes: >>> the current 4e4th supposedly uses just 6k of the 16k of code space in >>> the chip. >> The 4e4th version which I am using occupies $1F20 = 7968 bytes - may >> be you have an older version. > I'm going by the start page of the 4e4th wiki, which says 6k, though maybe that refers to the non-4e4th Camelforth, or to an old version of 4e4th. Thanks for your remark. This has to be corrected on the start page of the 4e4th wiki! >> The MSP430G2553 FLASH is divided in two parts of 8k each - 8k for the >> Forth system and 8k for the user. This is because of the bulk erasing >> constraints. > Oh ok, I haven't examined how this works yet. My Launchpad is still in its box til I get some time to mess with it. Then get your LaunchPad out of the box and check it with 4E4th! If you have Linux, follow the advice on 4E4th.com / 4E4th-Wiki: http://www.forth-ev.de/wiki/doku.php/en:projects:4e4th:start If you have Windows XP, read the 4E4th-IDE Start Notes to see if you may like it: http://www.4e4th.com/4E4th-IDE-StartNotes.pdf It will work on Windows 7, too. >> 8k for the Forth system and 8 k for the user is an equal share. We >> decided this from early on. It doesn't make sense to have a Forth >> operating system larger than the user space. > Well, I don't know that it's inherently not sensible, but ok, 8k/8k is a reasonable sounding division. Thanks! >> we put a lot of goodies into our 4E4th-IDE. > I didn't know about this IDE! I thought 4e4th was a standalone Forth that communicates with a terminal emulator, i.e. no host software to speak of. 4E4th is a standalone Forth that communicates with a terminal or a terminal emulator, but there may be problems with download, when the terminal sends the next line before 4E4th has done compiling the previous line. The 4E4th-IDE has been announced at the EuroForth 2012 conference in Oxford, GB: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef12/papers/bruehl.pdf > I certainly suggest updating the web site to describe the IDE. This will be done as soon as we get our okay from our beta-testers. Are you interested in testing? >> The 4E4th-IDE needs only 4.4 MB on disk, including the FLASH >> programmer and support for the MSP430G2553 I/O constants > I have to wonder what even this 4.4MB is doing, and I hope it's not Windows dependent. The FLASH programming part (3.1 MB) is sponsored by TI and works with Windows only. Therefore the 4E4th-IDE is written in visualFORTH for Windows XP. The 4E4th-IDE itself needs 1.3 MB - the goal was to get ready. There are additional 2.5 MB for the pictured 4E4th-IDE-StartNotes.pdf, which describes how to get 4E4th onto the LaunchPad using the 4E4th-IDE and how to start programming by a newbee. Somebody will develop a 4E4th-IDE for Linux, too, I am sure about that. >> to download the IAR-IDE you need 1GB of disk space, > Oh that sounds horrendous. You can run a complete Linux system with much less space than that. I figured I'd use the GCC toolchain for C stuff, and I expect that to be much smaller than 1GB as well. Find out how to get it done on Linux! >>> That allows adding major features like locals, an assembler, etc. >> There is no space to include locals. > I've been wondering how Forth locals are usually implemented. It might be possible to do them with very little memory. Would be great, but there is not enough space for locals. >> Newbees don't necessarily need an assembler. > I guess I don't consider this type of system to be suitable for a complete programming novice, who is better off with a more forgiving language (higher level features, less memory constraints, and extensive error checking with good diagnostic messages and debugging tools) that runs on a normal PC without external hardware. In my opinion everybody is able to program when using Forth. When I presented RSC-Forth at the electronica fair in Munich in 1986, on Saturday the school kids came. I showed them how to program birds chirping, and while I was typing, one of the kids told me that I had made a typo - the kid was right! I never forget that! Forth is just the right programming language to start with for kids! Kids like the extensibility and the freedom Forth gives them when programming, instead of getting the feeling to live behind bars which other programming languages give. Don't underestimate the DIY movement! This movement is coming out strong, especially with using microcontrollers! Programming on a normal PC without external hardware is like taking pictures instead of using a constructor kit to build a gadget. > 4e4th seems like a great into to embedded microcontroller programming and that's how I've been thinking of it. That's what I am thinking, too! > Microcontroller programming is a particular niche in the programming world awhich I think is not really the right initial entry point to programming for most people. I myself started programming using microcontrollers and discovered Forth after a few years of experience in programming assembly code with paper and pencil. I am sure there are two different kinds of people: One kind which likes to write stories, and one kind who likes to make things work. Of course it is possible to strive to make a PC work, but that's not what I mean. > Someone getting involved with it probably ought to get some exposure to assemblers since they will likely need at least a little bit of it if they're developing actual microcontroller applications. May be you started with assembly language, too, as I did. From this point of view the start with assembly language is the right thing to do. But I have to say this: When I had my engineering education, in the last year, just in time for my masterpiece, I got a new professor which introduced me to Integrated Circuits. You can't imagine how great that feeling was not to have to calculate transistor circuits any more! Since then I am using IC's instead of putting a bunch of transistors together. The same we have now with programming microcontrollers: a newbee doesn't need to start with machine dependent assembly language - it is much better for him or her to start with Forth which is mostly plain logic without all the restrictions of other kinds of programming. When he or she understood programming by using Forth, he or she can look for other programming methods and then decide where to proceed. >> We are working on an assembler for download or as a cross assembler. > An assembler in Forth that can be loaded into 4e4th would be great. That's what we try to achieve. But somebody has to focus on this. > If you're going to have a host-side application at all though, maybe it's time to think about a cross-compiled Forth. That gets the text interpreter out of the MSP430, so you can put more user friendliness into the (host-side) compiler, and it frees up lots of space in the target, so you can use the smaller Launchpad cpu (2k program space, 128 bytes ram) though you may have to shrink some memory areas like the stacks. A cross-compiled Forth is not a problem. You can get it here: http://www.forth.com/embedded/swiftx-embedded-systems-development-tools.html?MCU=MSP430 > It occurs to me something like this could be done in Javascript or Python pretty straightforwardly. There is already an ANS Forth in Javascript (JSForth) and the proposed ANS cross-compilation extensions look pretty simple. The Launchpad image would just have an address interpreter besides the existing code to communicate with the host. Or in a more ambitious system there could be a host-side native code compiler, either a real one, or some combination of subroutine threading and code templates for primitives. I have chosen Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-26 16:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xehjfnalm.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17583 |
visualforth@rocketmail.com writes: > If you have Linux, follow the advice on 4E4th.com / 4E4th-Wiki: > http://www.forth-ev.de/wiki/doku.php/en:projects:4e4th:start OK, will do that when I have some time near the Launchpad (I'm travelling right now and don't have it at hand). > The 4E4th-IDE has been announced at the EuroForth 2012 conference in Oxford, GB: > http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef12/papers/bruehl.pdf ... > Are you interested in testing? It looks interesting but Windows dependent, and I don't use Windows. Oh well. > The FLASH programming part (3.1 MB) is sponsored by TI and works with > Windows only. Wow, I wonder what is so difficult about flash programming the Launchpad. It looks like MSPDebug ( http://mspdebug.sourceforge.net/ ) can do it. >> I figured I'd use the GCC toolchain for C stuff, and I expect that >> to be much smaller than 1GB as well. > Find out how to get it done on Linux! http://eclecti.cc/hardware/using-the-ti-msp430-launchpad-with-ubuntu-10-04 > Would be great, but there is not enough space for locals. I guess I don't understand the issue here. I think locals are sometimes implemented as slots inside the return stack, accessed using a (nonstandard but common) RPICK primitive. So the compiler just has to create temporary dictionary entries to remember where these slots are, which consumes a little bit of memory during compilation but none at runtime. I guess there would be hair to track the nesting depth for loops, unless you use a frame pointer (could dedicate an MSP430 register to it, but would also use a stack slot saving the old one). > Don't underestimate the DIY movement! This movement is coming out > strong, especially with using microcontrollers! But they need assemblers, to make the hardware do its things!!! Forth by itself doesn't expose the low level CPU instructions. > I am sure there are two different kinds of people: > One kind which likes to write stories, and one kind who likes to make things work. RMS used to compare writing big programs to building cities. The world inside a PC is more malleable than the real world and bigger than a tiny little microcontroller can really let you explore. > A cross-compiled Forth is not a problem. You can get it here: > http://www.forth.com/embedded/swiftx-embedded-systems-development-tools.html?MCU=MSP430 That's a professional product, excellent by all reports, but orders of magnitude more expensive than the Launchpad hardware, and Windows dependent. For a purpose like this I'd want to stay with 100% FOSS. >> It occurs to me something like this could be done in Javascript or >> Python pretty straightforwardly. > I have chosen Forth. Fine ;-). Are you saying the 4e4th Windows IDE is written in Forth though? That's neat. May I ask which implementation you're using? I know gforth works under Windows but I didn't realize it had GUI bindings, so I'm guessing you're using a different Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-26 19:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <abd7d34b-3d65-4150-b6f3-98b57391569c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17584 |
On Monday, November 26, 2012 7:38:52 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote: >> visualforth.com writes: >> If you have Linux, follow the advice on 4E4th.com / 4E4th-Wiki: >> http://www.forth-ev.de/wiki/doku.php/en:projects:4e4th:start > OK, will do that when I have some time near the Launchpad (I'm travelling right now and don't have it at hand). Ok, accepted! >> The 4E4th-IDE has been announced at the EuroForth 2012 conference in Oxford, GB: >> http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef12/papers/bruehl.pdf ... >> Are you interested in testing? > It looks interesting but Windows dependent, and I don't use Windows. Oh well. Sorry! >> The FLASH programming part (3.1 MB) is sponsored by TI and works with >> Windows only. > Wow, I wonder what is so difficult about flash programming the Launchpad. It looks like MSPDebug ( http://mspdebug.sourceforge.net/ ) can do it. TI has suggested MSPDebug for Linux. >>> I figured I'd use the GCC toolchain for C stuff, and I expect that >>> to be much smaller than 1GB as well. >> Find out how to get it done on Linux! > http://eclecti.cc/hardware/using-the-ti-msp430-launchpad-with-ubuntu-10-04 Thanks for this link! Other Linux users will like it! >> Would be great, but there is not enough space for locals. > I guess I don't understand the issue here. I think locals are sometimes implemented as slots inside the return stack, accessed using a (nonstandard but common) RPICK primitive. So the compiler just has to create temporary dictionary entries to remember where these slots are, which consumes a little bit of memory during compilation but none at runtime. I guess there would be hair to track the nesting depth for loops, unless you use a frame pointer (could dedicate an MSP430 register to it, but would also use a stack slot saving the old one). A temporary dictionary can only be created in RAM - in FLASH memory it can't be temporary. Each command needed to do anything needs FLASH memory space on the system side, and this space is restricted. >> Don't underestimate the DIY movement! This movement is coming out >> strong, especially with using microcontrollers! > But they need assemblers, to make the hardware do its things!!! Forth by itself doesn't expose the low level CPU instructions. Of course low level I/O CPU instructions are supported by 4E4th, no assembler needed. >> I am sure there are two different kinds of people: >> One kind which likes to write stories, and one kind who likes to make things work. > RMS used to compare writing big programs to building cities. The world inside a PC is more malleable than the real world and bigger than a tiny little microcontroller can really let you explore. Thanks for this hint! Tells me that a tiny little microcontroller is really just the right thing to let newbees start to explore the world of programming stuff. >> A cross-compiled Forth is not a problem. You can get it here: >> http://www.forth.com/embedded/swiftx-embedded-systems-development-tools.html?MCU=MSP430 > That's a professional product, excellent by all reports, but orders of magnitude more expensive than the Launchpad hardware, and Windows dependent. For a purpose like this I'd want to stay with 100% FOSS. We decided to use a Forth system on the target. This gives a lot of advantages, no PC software needed, only a terminal or terminal emulation. As soon as 4E4th is on the LaunchPad, it can be used with any terminal or computer with any OS, as long as there is serial ASCII terminal support. >>> It occurs to me something like this could be done in Javascript or >>> Python pretty straightforwardly. >> I have chosen Forth. > Fine ;-). Are you saying the 4e4th Windows IDE is written in Forth though? Yes, I have chosen Forth. > That's neat. May I ask which implementation you're using? I use visualFORTH. > I know gforth works under Windows but I didn't realize it had GUI bindings, so I'm guessing you're using a different Forth. That's true! I used visualFORTH, which is based on Win32Forth: http://www.visualforth.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-26 20:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7x1uffy8fu.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #17589 |
visualforth@rocketmail.com writes: >> http://eclecti.cc/hardware/using-the-ti-msp430-launchpad-with-ubuntu-10-04 > Thanks for this link! Other Linux users will like it! Note there is another link inside that page that points to more good info. >> [Locals] So the compiler just has to create temporary dictionary...> > A temporary dictionary can only be created in RAM Yes of course it would use ram, but not very much in the usual case where there are only a handful of locals in a definition, and it would be freed as soon as the definition ended. Actually there wouldn't even have to be a dictionary. Just always call the locals A, B, C, D, and E, or LOCAL1, LOCAL2, or whatever, and the compiler can recognize them. Of course that would be non-ANS. There is something in Flashforth called the "P" register that may be an even simpler version of this. > Tells me that a tiny little microcontroller is really just the right > thing to let newbees start to explore the world of programming stuff. I just don't understand this. The idea of a microcontroller to me is to make hardware that does stuff that can't be done with pure software on a PC or phone/tablet. If it's just a matter of programming, why bother with extra hardware? > I used visualFORTH, which is based on Win32Forth: > http://www.visualforth.com/ Oh neat, that explains your email address ;). By the way, in another post I claimed that the Launchpad uses < 2 mw of power even at full speed (16 mhz). That was based on someone's blog post but I'm seeing some conflicting info in other places now. It looks like it's under 1 mw at 1 mhz but quite a lot more at full speed. There is also an ultra low power low speed mode (some khz) that uses just a few microwatts and is good for a real time clock. The board comes with a 32768 hz watch crystal that you have to solder onto the board if you want to use it. I can't figure out why they didn't solder it on themselves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-11-26 22:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0d81a977-952a-4bd7-ad59-d0ce32582a9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #17590 |
On Monday, November 26, 2012 11:30:03 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote: > visualforth.com writes: >>> [Locals] So the compiler just has to create temporary dictionary...> >> A temporary dictionary can only be created in RAM > Yes of course it would use ram, but not very much in the usual case where there are only a handful of locals in a definition, and it would be freed as soon as the definition ended. > Actually there wouldn't even have to be a dictionary. Just always call the locals A, B, C, D, and E, or LOCAL1, LOCAL2, or whatever, and the compiler can recognize them. Of course that would be non-ANS. > There is something in Flashforth called the "P" register that may be an even simpler version of this. Thanks for your hints! We have to check this! >> Tells me that a tiny little microcontroller is really just the right >> thing to let newbees start to explore the world of programming stuff. > I just don't understand this. The idea of a microcontroller to me is to make hardware that does stuff that can't be done with pure software on a PC or phone/tablet. Yes, you are right! The idea of a microcontroller is to make hardware that does stuff that can't be done with pure software on a PC or phone/tablet. > If it's just a matter of programming, why bother with extra hardware? Because people like to have something of their own, which works standalone, not connected to a computer. In theory it's just a matter of programming - if you are doing mental experiments. For beginners programming a PC or phone/tablet is much harder than programming a microprocessor. Have you ever done programming on Windows or Linux? Then compare it to programming a microcontroller! That's quite a difference. It's really quite a different experience using microcontrollers and do some fancy stuff with it. There are thousands of young people programming the Arduino without using Forth, and the Raspberry Pi is sold by the tenthousands, see "10,000 educational single board computers sold on the first day!" https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topicsearchin/comp.lang.forth/Raspberry$20Pi/comp.lang.forth/pXbyCinmvs0 We can't ignore this! >> I used visualFORTH, which is based on Win32Forth: >> http://www.visualforth.com/ >Oh neat, that explains your email address ;). > By the way, in another post I claimed that the Launchpad uses < 2 mw of power even at full speed (16 mhz). That was based on someone's blog post but I'm seeing some conflicting info in other places now. Power usage depends on the program running on the MSP. > It looks like it's under 1 mw at 1 mhz but quite a lot more at full speed. There is also an ultra low power low speed mode (some khz) that uses just a few microwatts and is good for a real time clock. 4E4th doesn't use this ultra low power low speed mode. > The board comes with a 32768 hz watch crystal that you have to solder onto the board if you want to use it. > I can't figure out why they didn't solder it on themselves. Soldering this tiny little part is expensive, and the MSP430 runs properly without any quartz. Why bother? It's a gift for people who like to do this extra work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web