Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #34459 > unrolled thread
| Started by | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-11-17 02:26 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-11-21 15:42 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 159 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-11-17 02:26 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-11-17 14:24 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-17 14:04 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-11-17 18:37 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-11-17 19:58 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-18 04:56 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-18 19:10 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-18 14:06 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-23 19:43 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-11-18 16:16 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-11-18 15:49 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2014-11-23 19:45 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-23 23:45 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Rod Pemberton" <buzzoff@nonamewhichexists.cmm> - 2014-11-24 17:18 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-23 14:04 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-23 11:25 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-24 09:36 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-24 06:02 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-24 13:04 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-24 14:50 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-24 14:06 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-11-24 16:38 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-24 09:04 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-24 16:16 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-24 12:57 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-25 16:18 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-25 14:40 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-26 00:48 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-25 19:10 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-26 02:09 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-26 11:22 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-26 16:11 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-25 16:57 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-26 03:51 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-27 16:10 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-27 10:39 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-28 15:27 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-28 10:26 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-29 01:03 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-29 15:27 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-29 19:04 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-30 15:48 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-30 17:36 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-03 14:25 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2014-12-04 20:04 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-04 08:37 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-04 21:39 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-05 03:31 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-05 18:33 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-05 14:56 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-29 13:07 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-29 16:00 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-29 11:21 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-30 15:26 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-30 12:49 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-24 18:34 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-25 16:04 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-25 14:48 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-26 00:49 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-25 21:07 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-26 11:45 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-11-26 12:44 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-26 14:11 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-26 16:17 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-26 23:27 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-27 12:28 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-27 09:20 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-27 15:59 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-27 10:42 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-28 15:44 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-28 10:35 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-29 15:38 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-29 19:10 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-30 16:09 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-30 17:40 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-03 16:47 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-04 21:22 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-05 12:37 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-05 19:02 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-06 12:09 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-12-06 06:45 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-06 19:58 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-07 13:39 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-07 08:04 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-07 22:52 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-10 12:46 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-11 02:08 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-11 10:20 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-12-11 05:06 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2014-12-11 17:56 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-12-15 15:57 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-12-16 07:53 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-12-17 08:49 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-11 23:46 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-11 16:24 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 17:46 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-11 22:20 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-13 00:24 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-12 18:39 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-12-13 21:06 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-12-13 22:58 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-12-04 03:38 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Horse Shit <puke.aguilar@hughfailure.com> - 2014-12-04 13:29 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2014-11-28 05:36 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-28 10:37 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-26 01:14 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-23 20:57 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-24 03:59 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-24 02:14 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-24 06:09 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-24 11:04 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-24 11:49 -1000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-24 13:57 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-24 12:28 -1000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-24 14:50 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-24 13:22 -1000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-24 16:15 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-24 14:38 -1000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-25 01:52 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-25 11:43 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-25 03:35 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-25 09:37 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-26 03:57 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-25 11:16 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-25 02:06 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-24 21:40 -1000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-24 23:57 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-25 03:37 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-25 03:43 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-25 15:26 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-25 15:47 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-25 03:30 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-25 09:32 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-25 11:11 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-24 12:24 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-25 09:45 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-24 10:17 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-17 23:20 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2014-11-17 23:31 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-18 02:44 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2014-11-18 00:18 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-18 13:51 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-18 12:06 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-18 09:23 -1000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-11-18 08:09 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-11-18 18:01 -0500
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-11-17 21:58 -1000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-18 14:04 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-11-18 18:53 +0100
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-11-18 14:15 -0600
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-23 13:40 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-11-18 17:48 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-23 14:24 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-11-23 16:53 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-11-23 17:26 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-11-18 03:34 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-11-18 04:19 -0800
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-11-23 13:50 +0000
Re: http://www.lowrisc.org/ Open Core - is the Forth Community involved in this new 64Bit Core? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-11-21 15:42 -0800
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-06 06:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a16b4b1c-a60c-4f44-afc2-5a728221dac0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #34819 |
On Saturday, December 6, 2014 12:41:24 PM UTC, Anton Ertl wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: > >Anton Ertl wrote: > > > >> Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: > >>>Anton Ertl wrote: > >>>> First of all, you don't need to develop an ARM64 assembler to maintain > >>>> Gforth. > >>> > >>>Well, it would be nice if someone developed an ARM64 assembler for Gforth. > >>>And if we go native code, ARM64 certainly is on the list of "should be > >>>supported" plattforms. > >> > >> Not for me. I won't support it. > > > >Because you have to give them your e-mail to download the documentation? > > > >We have sort-of Itanium support in Gforth (well, at least flush-cache)! > >They wanted your firstborn son to download the documentation! How did you > >get that information? > > I just downloaded the documentation. They did not want my firstborn, > nor did they want me to register, or other nonsense. > > >I wouldn't have touched Itanic with a 10-foot-pole, > >after they had built that completely ridiculous NDA and secrecy around it. > > It seems that they realized the error in their ways. You can download > it without further ado: > > http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/manual/itanium-architecture-vol-1-2-3-4-reference-set-manual.pdf > > >Yes, the same thing is true if you compare savannah.org and github.com: All > >the hoops you have to jump through to get a GNU project up and running > >compared to how easy it is to get a project on github: All the students will > >for sure publish their project on github and the FSF is toast. > > They sure do publish their projects on github. > > >For a project like using a SoC chip, it's not the student who decides. It's > >someone in higher management, and the hoops of the underlings don't count. > >It's things like "is there an Android for PowerPC?" Oh, no, there isn't. > > Hmm, googling for "Android PowerPC" shows that there is something. > And since Android is free software, you are able to supply the missing > pieces if needed. > > >We are done with the discussion. Next question would be power budget and > >price point, and yes, we are again done with the discussion. Last point? > >You need an e-mail to register. > > One question is, where they get the people to work on the project. > And if there are few people available with ARM64 knowledge, that's one > factor against ARM64. Or with your "discussion over" style > management, ARM64 is out. > > >However, I didn't even find the POWER8 architecture reference manual PDF on > >Google or on power.org. All I find are presentations. I don't really see > >how IBM is better: Maybe I can download their document for free, but when I > >can't find it, it doesn't help me. > > IBM apparently is not better, but Freescale is. I found the PowerPC > architecture manual by googling for it, and it's available for > download from Freescale. > > >> I teach assembly language. But I certainly won't be teaching ARM64 > >> assembly language, and therefore we won't be buying ARM64 servers for > >> this stuff. > > > >Your students will buy ARM64 phones and tablets. They won't ask you; within > >the next few years, these will be the only phones left (no more ARM32 > >phones, some high-end Android phones already have ARM64 cores, and only wait > >for Android Lollipop, and the iPhones are already more ARM64 than ARM32). > >And they will ask you how to do your examples with Gforth's inline assembler > >on their phones and tablets. > > > >You don't have to buy anything. > > For the compilers course where I teach assembly language, the tasks > they have to do are to write a program that has to run on our server; > I run it there to test it. So what their phone contains is > irrelevant, and even if the testing part was not an issue, I would not > give them the task to write an ARM64 program, because I have no > documentation for that architecture, and because they cannot get the > documentation without jumping through hoops. > > - anton > -- > M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html > comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html > New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html > EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/ Anton, poor students of yours. It seems you just prepare them for the old stuff you have learnt sometime in the past and what you have as servers. Get over it. Th ARM will be there for a long time - probably longer than you teach. But you could not teach them what the future is anyway as you stay in the past it seems with your servers. As I said, poor students of yours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-06 19:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m5vjk7$h0o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #34819 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > It seems that they realized the error in their ways. You can download > it without further ado: > > http://www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/manual/itanium-architecture-vol-1-2-3-4-reference-set-manual.pdf Well, before that, they had this burning hoops and you had to jump a 3-turn salto 10m high through 7 hoops into boiling lava to get it. That was too difficult, so they did learn their lesson. Anyways, they had other problems: Itanic just sucked, the compilers sucked, everything sucked. If everything sucks, you'll try to improve everything. The "hoop" ARM has is a much smaller one, and therefore not noticable reducing the number of people downloading the documentation. So they will never learn that it is wrong what they do. Their core is good, they have a lot of development going on for ARM64, and they contribute a lot themselves (the ARM64 port of Linux is mostly written by ARM). >>Yes, the same thing is true if you compare savannah.org and github.com: >>All the hoops you have to jump through to get a GNU project up and running >>compared to how easy it is to get a project on github: All the students >>will for sure publish their project on github and the FSF is toast. > > They sure do publish their projects on github. Yes, and that's why the FSF is doomed: They don't attract the next generation of free software writers. I don't know if they will learn it or not... > Hmm, googling for "Android PowerPC" shows that there is something. > And since Android is free software, you are able to supply the missing > pieces if needed. Android is sort-of free, it's developed behind closed walls, and then thrown over the wall. This causes problems for everybody, but yes, you could get your Android up and running on PowerPC, probably always trailing Google's Android by half a year. > One question is, where they get the people to work on the project. > And if there are few people available with ARM64 knowledge, that's one > factor against ARM64. Or with your "discussion over" style > management, ARM64 is out. This "discussion over" management assumes that people with the skills they demand show up (and they write the required skills into their job openings), and that's actually the case, because people do look at job openings and what skillset is required. If they ask for "Java", they will go to the Java course at University. Not to the Forth course. This is one of the problems we have in the Forth world, but certainly not a problem for management which want Java coders. Or C#/VB coders, in the Microsoft world. > IBM apparently is not better, but Freescale is. I found the PowerPC > architecture manual by googling for it, and it's available for > download from Freescale. I'm not even sure if the "send us your e-mail" situation will stay the same with ARM. The current ARMv8 reference manual is still in beta, and the only non-e-mail access I can get is from a Chinese site somewhere in Zhejiang. It was in "limited circulation" for the first two releases. The ARMv7-M reference manual, which is long out of beta, is free to download without anything on an education site, Google's first hit for it: https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~prabal/teaching/eecs373-f10/readings/ARMv7-M_ARM.pdf It still requires a login on ARM's own page to download it. Apparently ARM has no problems with teaching institutions to redistribute it. Maybe you could free that ARMv8 document, by just asking ARM for permission to redistribute it to your students on an open-for-everybody web site, like umich.edu does with ARMv7-M.pdf. The course has a lot of ARM documentation on site: https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~prabal/teaching/eecs373/ All that is "for registered users only" on ARM's own website. Apparently the problems you are facing don't impact other university courses. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-07 13:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec7.143914@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #34827 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
[Bernd Paysan:]
>>>Yes, the same thing is true if you compare savannah.org and github.com:
>>>All the hoops you have to jump through to get a GNU project up and running
>>>compared to how easy it is to get a project on github: All the students
>>>will for sure publish their project on github and the FSF is toast.
>>
>> They sure do publish their projects on github.
>
>Yes, and that's why the FSF is doomed: They don't attract the next
>generation of free software writers.
Not sure about that. Before github, students put such course projects
on some web site they had access to, and did not try to make them GNU
projects, nor even SourceForge projects (more comparable to github).
If free software flourishes without FSF involvement, then the FSF has
succeeded. If you consider the main purpose of an organization to
continue existing, then it may be doomed, but I don't think that this
is the main purpose of the FSF.
Anyway, I think that being blessed as a GNU project and publishing on
gnu.org provides some credibility to a project, that publishing on
github does not; that will continue for the foreseeable future.
>> One question is, where they get the people to work on the project.
>> And if there are few people available with ARM64 knowledge, that's one
>> factor against ARM64. Or with your "discussion over" style
>> management, ARM64 is out.
>
>This "discussion over" management assumes that people with the skills they
>demand show up (and they write the required skills into their job openings),
>and that's actually the case, because people do look at job openings and
>what skillset is required. If they ask for "Java", they will go to the Java
>course at University. Not to the Forth course. This is one of the problems
>we have in the Forth world, but certainly not a problem for management which
>want Java coders. Or C#/VB coders, in the Microsoft world.
Now why do they want Java coders? Because someone tells them that
there are plenty of Java coders available. And that may be the case,
e.g., we have done Java in the first programming course for quite some
time. If lots of universities changed to teaching Forth to all CS
students (highly unlikely), a few years later you would see lots of
jobs offers for Forth programmers.
>I'm not even sure if the "send us your e-mail" situation will stay the same
>with ARM. The current ARMv8 reference manual is still in beta, and the only
>non-e-mail access I can get is from a Chinese site somewhere in Zhejiang.
>It was in "limited circulation" for the first two releases. The ARMv7-M
>reference manual, which is long out of beta, is free to download without
>anything on an education site, Google's first hit for it:
>
>https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~prabal/teaching/eecs373-f10/readings/ARMv7-M_ARM.pdf
>
>It still requires a login on ARM's own page to download it. Apparently ARM
>has no problems with teaching institutions to redistribute it.
If they are aware of it. Or maybe that university got the permission
to redistribute before ARM established the current restrictive policy
(I dimly remember downloading ARMv7 stuff from ARM without further
ado).
>Maybe you
>could free that ARMv8 document, by just asking ARM for permission to
>redistribute it to your students on an open-for-everybody web site, like
>umich.edu does with ARMv7-M.pdf.
Why should I? There are plenty of architectures around for which the
manuals can be just downloaded. I also doubt that such a request
would be granted. If they don't let people download stuff from their
website, they are unlikely to allow me to publish this stuff.
>The course has a lot of ARM documentation on site:
>
>https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~prabal/teaching/eecs373/
>
>All that is "for registered users only" on ARM's own website. Apparently
>the problems you are facing don't impact other university courses.
At least one course at one university. Just like you are apparently
happy to jump through the hoops that ARM puts up for you, there may be
some that are happy to do what you suggested above. But many others
are not.
Which brings us back to the origin of this thread. Apparently the
people at Berkeley were so unhappy with the restrictions that their
industry contacts (which should be pretty good) tried put on them that
they did their own architecture: RISC-V, with several implementations
already in existance, and both architecture and implementations are
free (beer and speech).
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-07 08:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xr3wbv42h.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #34833 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: >>https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~prabal/teaching/eecs373-f10/readings/ARMv7-M_ARM.pdf > (I dimly remember downloading ARMv7 stuff from ARM without further ado). Yes, I thought armv7 stuff had been available since forever, and that the signup headache is with armv8.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-07 22:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m62i5j$j2s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #34834 |
Paul Rubin wrote: > anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: >>>https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~prabal/teaching/eecs373-f10/readings/ARMv7-M_ARM.pdf >> (I dimly remember downloading ARMv7 stuff from ARM without further ado). > > Yes, I thought armv7 stuff had been available since forever, and that > the signup headache is with armv8. No, it's just their website requires signup to download anything of significance. If you downloaded it without signup headache, it's from somewhere else. Given that ARM is in UK, probably the GCHQ stepped in and demanded that no terrorist shall download this information, relevant to national security, without revealing his identity (probably to lure people who use TOR to access it into revealing something ;-). I've no idea why they do this. It's pretty common practice, if you look for companies who don't do it, you'll not find that many. Most decisions made by companies of that size at that management level are stupid. When you develop for some ARM controller, you have to sign up to at least three sites: ARM won't give you their architecture manual without signup. Codeweavers won't give you their GCC cross compiler without signup (and even tough it's GPL, apparently nobody sets up anonymous Codeweaver mirrors). And the chip maker won't give you his peripherals manual without signup. Doh. And that's not limited to ARM. Therefore, I think this sort of stupidity is "industry standard", and there are a few exceptions; Anton depicts it the other way round. And doing a crusade against it, like Anton is doing, doesn't help, because these people made sure that they have no negative feedback loop. If you want to raise that issue, Anton, invite somebody from ARM to give a talk at your university (that sort of thing usually works), and complain to him in person about the hoops you have to jump through - and yes, the resolution would most likely be that you get permission to redistribute, as that's easier for that guy than to convince some other department to change to a direct download link. ARM's licensors shipped more than 10 billion devices last year, so apparently, their signup policies don't cause them significant harm. I also think Anton gets the popularity of Java wrong: Java is not popular, because there are many students who know Java. Java has many student who know it, because Sun had really good marketing. Widespread regular Java courses at universities came years *after* Sun had made Java a success. This is very typical: Most of the time, university courses are ways behind current industry development. When I studied, our assembler course was VAX based, and we had Modula II and Scheme as programming languages. The reality outside was x86 and C; Java just started somewhere towards the end. Of course, teaching C was out of question, as C is a completely disgusting language. I asked our comp.arch professor, at the end of a one-semester lecture about Lisp machines, if he could add implementation techniques on modern RISC processors to his script, which the two other students which had stayed for that long really liked, but the professor really disliked... he liked the old, microcode programmed Lisp machines. Today, the teaching people I know at TUM are about my age, they rather do C than Java, because Java is "a completely disgusting language". A lot of teaching is simply repeating the things the teacher has learned when he was young; a problematic approach with any quickly changing field of technology. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-10 12:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec10.134656@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #34837 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>And doing a crusade against it, like Anton is doing,
I am far too passive about this and have too many other things to do
to go on a crusade. If I went on a crusade, I would let them dig
their grave deeper: Report the bootlegs of the manuals to ARM's
enforcement division, so they get taken off the net, and so that these
supporters of this company get punished for their support, by the
company.
> doesn't help, because
>these people made sure that they have no negative feedback loop.
Revenue is one feedback that they get, although a very coarse one.
>If you
>want to raise that issue, Anton, invite somebody from ARM to give a talk at
>your university (that sort of thing usually works), and complain to him in
>person about the hoops you have to jump through - and yes, the resolution
>would most likely be that you get permission to redistribute, as that's
>easier for that guy than to convince some other department to change to a
>direct download link.
I have no urge to waste my time to help ARM in that way, even if I
expected that approach to be fruitful (which I don't).
>ARM's licensors shipped more than 10 billion devices last year, so
>apparently, their signup policies don't cause them significant harm.
That shows nothing, because we don't know how many devices would be
shipped if they published their documentation. And even if the
non-publication costs them just 1% revenue, that's GBP 7M, which is
probably seen as significant. But there is no way to know how big the
effect is.
>Today, the teaching people I know at TUM are about my age, they rather do C
>than Java, because Java is "a completely disgusting language". A lot of
>teaching is simply repeating the things the teacher has learned when he was
>young; a problematic approach with any quickly changing field of technology.
Teaching the language du jour is a problematic approach in a quickly
changing field. When I started studying, there were claims that 60%
of programming is done in Cobol, 20% in Fortran; should they have
taught us Cobol?
The way to go is not to teach a language, but to teach the general
concept, i.e., programming. Java is not a good language for that IMO,
because it requires understanding lots of concepts to understand even
relatively simple programs; it may be a good preparation for
programming without understanding, but I think that a CS graduate
should be able to understand programs. C is easier to understand, but
is not so good at giving feedback on mistakes that a newbie can
understand; Forth has the same problem.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-11 02:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m6aqpn$hub$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #34860 |
Anton Ertl wrote: >>ARM's licensors shipped more than 10 billion devices last year, so >>apparently, their signup policies don't cause them significant harm. > > That shows nothing, because we don't know how many devices would be > shipped if they published their documentation. And even if the > non-publication costs them just 1% revenue, that's GBP 7M, which is > probably seen as significant. But there is no way to know how big the > effect is. Looking at the success of the competition, they must make bigger mistakes. The thing is: It's not a "non-publication". You repeat that, but it's wrong. It is not confidential - signing an NDA would count for me as non- publication. It's just an annoying web-site which requires you to open an account. Compare that to the "publications" in scientific journals which require your university to buy a bundle of journals at high costs: Even the stuff printed there is "publication". There are different grades of how free a published document is, and how annoying it is to get it. > Teaching the language du jour is a problematic approach in a quickly > changing field. When I started studying, there were claims that 60% > of programming is done in Cobol, 20% in Fortran; should they have > taught us Cobol? That numbers came probably from mainframe computers... At that time, some people still did ignore PCs and even workstations, which were not "real computers". However: They didn't teach Cobol to anybody, so when the Y2K problem arrived, the only rescue was to get all those retired Cobol programmers back to work. > The way to go is not to teach a language, but to teach the general > concept, i.e., programming. Java is not a good language for that IMO, > because it requires understanding lots of concepts to understand even > relatively simple programs; it may be a good preparation for > programming without understanding, but I think that a CS graduate > should be able to understand programs. C is easier to understand, but > is not so good at giving feedback on mistakes that a newbie can > understand; Forth has the same problem. The industry already has a very significant age discrimination. And if you release only people who can program the language du jour, and nothing else (and due to the lack of understanding what they do, learning the next language du jour will not be easy), the industry will replace these people when the next wave of another language du jour arrives. Java is indeed better at statically analyzing a program (by taking out difficult to analyze features like pointers), but IMHO teaching that pushes students into requesting more and better static analysis tools, "because it is so hard to test the program". Forth goes into a different direction: making testing easier. I think beginners should be taught an interactive language first, but I would say that it should be a beginner-friendly langauge that doesn't require to fully understand the machine, but gives good feedback and is fun to use. It must be made clear by the teacher that this isn't a serious programming language, but a teaching tool; I think Logo still could be a good choice. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-11 10:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec11.112025@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #34866 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Anton Ertl wrote:
>> That shows nothing, because we don't know how many devices would be
>> shipped if they published their documentation. And even if the
>> non-publication costs them just 1% revenue, that's GBP 7M, which is
>> probably seen as significant. But there is no way to know how big the
>> effect is.
>
>Looking at the success of the competition, they must make bigger mistakes.
>The thing is: It's not a "non-publication". You repeat that, but it's
>wrong.
It's not available to the public, but only to registered ARM
developers (or something along these lines). It says so on the web
site. And yes, there are certainly other factors that influence the
success in this business.
>> The way to go is not to teach a language, but to teach the general
>> concept, i.e., programming. Java is not a good language for that IMO,
>> because it requires understanding lots of concepts to understand even
>> relatively simple programs; it may be a good preparation for
>> programming without understanding, but I think that a CS graduate
>> should be able to understand programs. C is easier to understand, but
>> is not so good at giving feedback on mistakes that a newbie can
>> understand; Forth has the same problem.
>
>The industry already has a very significant age discrimination. And if you
>release only people who can program the language du jour, and nothing else
>(and due to the lack of understanding what they do, learning the next
>language du jour will not be easy), the industry will replace these people
>when the next wave of another language du jour arrives.
Yes, that's my point.
>Java is indeed better at statically analyzing a program (by taking out
>difficult to analyze features like pointers), but IMHO teaching that pushes
>students into requesting more and better static analysis tools, "because it
>is so hard to test the program". Forth goes into a different direction:
>making testing easier.
With "feedback on mistakes" I do not mean static stuff (where the Java
compiler is sometimes surprisingly good, and sometimes very
misleading), but stuff like the feedback one gets on an out-of-bounds
array access. If a beginner only gets a wrong result or a
segmentation violation, they do not yet have the debugging prowess to
find the mistake quickly.
>I think beginners should be taught an interactive language first, but I
>would say that it should be a beginner-friendly langauge that doesn't
>require to fully understand the machine, but gives good feedback and is fun
>to use. It must be made clear by the teacher that this isn't a serious
>programming language, but a teaching tool; I think Logo still could be a
>good choice.
I mostly agree, except for the "not a serious language" part.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-11 05:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <WY-dnUphL8435xTJnZ2dnUU7-aednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #34867 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: > >>I think beginners should be taught an interactive language first, >>but I would say that it should be a beginner-friendly langauge that >>doesn't require to fully understand the machine, but gives good >>feedback and is fun to use. It must be made clear by the teacher >>that this isn't a serious programming language, but a teaching tool; >>I think Logo still could be a good choice. > > I mostly agree, except for the "not a serious language" part. This is an interesting one. It seems, at least in my world, that semi-interactive interpreted languages are winning at the moment. Python and JavaScript in particular are used for a lot of serious work; whether they are "serious languages" is hard to say. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-11 17:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20141211175622.0872de8d@T60A> |
| In reply to | #34868 |
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 05:06:18 -0600 Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > This is an interesting one. It seems, at least in my world, that > semi-interactive interpreted languages are winning at the moment. > Python and JavaScript in particular are used for a lot of serious > work; whether they are "serious languages" is hard to say. Python might make a good front end for a stack engine. The probing student could look inside and also write a bit in Forth, and have the best of both! Jan Coombs -- -- email valid, else fix dots and hyphen jan4clf2014@murrayhyphenmicroftdotcodotuk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-15 15:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m6n0c6$q2q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #34868 |
on 11/12/2014 11:06:17, Andrew Haley wrote: > Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >> Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >> >>>I think beginners should be taught an interactive language first, >>>but I would say that it should be a beginner-friendly langauge that >>>doesn't require to fully understand the machine, but gives good >>>feedback and is fun to use. It must be made clear by the teacher >>>that this isn't a serious programming language, but a teaching tool; >>>I think Logo still could be a good choice. >> >> I mostly agree, except for the "not a serious language" part. > > This is an interesting one. It seems, at least in my world, that > semi-interactive interpreted languages are winning at the moment. > Python and JavaScript in particular are used for a lot of serious > work; whether they are "serious languages" is hard to say. > > Andrew. Not even Turing completeness can be used to define "serious", since it excludes markup languages and regular expressions. Each to his own definition. (Although I am of the fixed opinion that YAML can only be considered "serious" in the sense of "serious mistake" or "you cannot be serious".)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-16 07:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Dec16.085320@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #34932 |
"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> writes:
>on 11/12/2014 11:06:17, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> This is an interesting one. It seems, at least in my world, that
>> semi-interactive interpreted languages are winning at the moment.
>> Python and JavaScript in particular are used for a lot of serious
>> work; whether they are "serious languages" is hard to say.
>>
>> Andrew.
>
>Not even Turing completeness can be used to define "serious", since it
>excludes markup languages and regular expressions.
And it includes the esoteric languages
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_programming_language> which are
neither intended for productive programming nor for teaching
programming.
As for Python and JavaScript, they are both intended and used for
productive programming, and pretty substantial ones, so I certainly
consider them serious.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-17 08:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <66400691-6fb4-4808-b410-3a72b5b3320b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #34952 |
On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 7:59:24 AM UTC, Anton Ertl wrote: > "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> writes: > >on 11/12/2014 11:06:17, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> This is an interesting one. It seems, at least in my world, that > >> semi-interactive interpreted languages are winning at the moment. > >> Python and JavaScript in particular are used for a lot of serious > >> work; whether they are "serious languages" is hard to say. > >> > >> Andrew. > > > >Not even Turing completeness can be used to define "serious", since it > >excludes markup languages and regular expressions. > > And it includes the esoteric languages > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_programming_language> which are > neither intended for productive programming nor for teaching > programming. > > As for Python and JavaScript, they are both intended and used for > productive programming, and pretty substantial ones, so I certainly > consider them serious. > > - anton > -- > M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html > comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html > New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html > EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/ I just received this, so it might be of interest for others on here.: We're pleased to announce the release of the first of what will be a series of memos describing our plans for lowRISC. This first document describes our current thinking on two aspects of the lowRISC SoC, namely tagged memory and 'minion' cores usable for I/O and other tasks. We are sharing it at this early stage in the spirit of "release early, release often" and to benefit from input and ideas from the wider community. <http://www.lowrisc.org/docs/memo-2014-001-tagged-memory-and-minion-cores> We welcome feedback either on the discussion thread on the memo download page or our mailing list <http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lowrisc-dev-lists.lowrisc.org>. Other recent and upcoming developments in brief: * We're pleased to welcome Wei Song, who is now working full time on the project <http://wsong83.github.io/>. * Alex Bradbury will be attending the RISC-V workshop Jan 14-15th in CA and presenting the current status of lowRISC. <http://riscv.org/workshop/> * We have set up a development discussion list, which with the release of our memo are keen to start using. <http://listmaster.pepperfish.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lowrisc-dev-lists.lowrisc.org> * We've been giving a number of talks about lowRISC, at ORConf 2014, London OSHUG and at ETH Zurich. Slides from some of these talks are here: <https://speakerdeck.com/asb/lowrisc-a-first-look>, <https://speakerdeck.com/robertmullins/lowrisc-talk-eth-zurich> with video here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcfgoRILvBg> or here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfOBV64z7uA>. * A number of us will be at FOSDEM (31st Jan and 1st Feb 2015). * We hope to release an FPGA-ready version of Berkeley's Rocket core generator with support for tagged memory early in the new year. You're receiving this message because you have signed up to our announcements list. For more frequent updates, follow @lowRISC on Twitter. Happy hacking!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-11 23:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m6d6rm$qh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #34867 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >>Anton Ertl wrote: >>> That shows nothing, because we don't know how many devices would be >>> shipped if they published their documentation. And even if the >>> non-publication costs them just 1% revenue, that's GBP 7M, which is >>> probably seen as significant. But there is no way to know how big the >>> effect is. >> >>Looking at the success of the competition, they must make bigger mistakes. >>The thing is: It's not a "non-publication". You repeat that, but it's >>wrong. > > It's not available to the public, but only to registered ARM > developers (or something along these lines). It says so on the web > site. And yes, there are certainly other factors that influence the > success in this business. Registration on this site is open to the public. You don't have to pay a fee, you don't have to sign an NDA, the registration is possible with pseudonymous e-mail and data, because ARM does not check this information. If "registered ARM developer" would be something like "registered Apple iOS developer" with a $99/a fee, and a credit card number to check whether the identity is real, then yes, I would agree that it is a real obstacle. But it's still open to the public: As long as everybody can pay the fee and nobody is excluded, it's "public". Just like an article in one of these expensive scientific journals is "published". A museum is "open to the public" even if they ask for an entrance fee. "Public" means non- discriminatorily to everyone, that's all. And as everyone can register there, it's public. Your refusal to enter this site reminds me on Kafka's piece "Vor dem Gesetz". This is just an open door. The guy at the entrance wouldn't actually do anything to prevent you from entering. And there are no further obstacles than a simple e-mail based registration form. The thing you want is a one-click solution. That's a good idea to provide information as one-click solution. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-11 16:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xd27pk959.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #34875 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: > A museum is "open to the public" even if they ask for an entrance fee. > "Public" means non- discriminatorily to everyone, that's all. And as > everyone can register there, it's public. No, only people who agree (or pretend to agree) to certian onerous terms can register. Public means you can get it without agreeing to anything. > Your refusal to enter this site reminds me on Kafka's piece "Vor dem > Gesetz". This is just an open door. The guy at the entrance wouldn't > actually do anything to prevent you from entering. And there are no further > obstacles than a simple e-mail based registration form. Look up Aaron Swartz in a search engine if you think those terms and conditions don't mean anything just because you can access the site anonymously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-11 17:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <881656df-7d81-4563-a059-130f6a361bac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #34876 |
On Thursday, December 11, 2014 6:24:20 PM UTC-6, Paul Rubin wrote: > Public means you can get it without agreeing to anything. > I know! I keep having to explain this to cops. If the city didn't want me pissing here, they shouldn't've called it a 'public' street. And don't get me started on my copyright 'violations'!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-11 22:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xr3w5tmmq.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #34877 |
Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> writes: >> Public means you can get it without agreeing to anything. > I know! I keep having to explain this to cops. > If the city didn't want me pissing here, they > shouldn't've called it a 'public' street. If you piss in the street the cops will probably nab you, since the laws can be enforced against you you whether you agree to it or not. That's different from the ARM TOS, which can't be enforced against you unless you agree.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-13 00:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m6fteh$lm9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #34876 |
Paul Rubin wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >> A museum is "open to the public" even if they ask for an entrance fee. >> "Public" means non- discriminatorily to everyone, that's all. And as >> everyone can register there, it's public. > > No, only people who agree (or pretend to agree) to certian onerous terms > can register. Public means you can get it without agreeing to anything. I've done the registration just again, to check, because I did *not* come by any "you agree to this terms blabla" during registration. You don't have to agree to any terms to get registered. All onerous things in the registration process are: * You have to provide a working e-Mail address * You have to provide name, country and company you work for * You have to type in a captcha which is so easy to read that any OCR can do better than you * You have to enter a password consisting of upper and lowercase letters and digits two times, and they must match * You have to click on the link they e-mail you, or copy it into your browser And then you are in. That's all. No accepting any onerous conditions at all. So that means: Everybody can register. I.e. it's public. >> Your refusal to enter this site reminds me on Kafka's piece "Vor dem >> Gesetz". This is just an open door. The guy at the entrance wouldn't >> actually do anything to prevent you from entering. And there are no >> further obstacles than a simple e-mail based registration form. > > Look up Aaron Swartz in a search engine if you think those terms and > conditions don't mean anything just because you can access the site > anonymously. Well, you do have to accept some terms when you download a document, but just to register, there are no terms. The terms of downloading a document vary; e.g. the ARMv7-M reference manual says that while it is non- confidential, any disclosure requires you to notice ARM before and their approval (this is stupid and onerous, and I would say probably also "surprising" under German law: a non-confidential document is *non- confidential*, full stop, which means no permission for disclosure required). The ARMv8 reference manual however only requires you to accept that this manual is copyrighted. That's a tiny bit onerous for someone who develops free software, indeed, and I'd prefer a copylefted reference manual any day, too. But it's not unusual, all they want from you is what the law gives them. The "we want you to inform us before you disclose anything" of the ARMv7-M manual is indeed bad. Of course, if you use that access as Aaron Schwartz did, to violate the copyright, i.e. the law, then you get problems, especially if you live in a torture state with police violence and dragnet surveillance, which does care about copyright. But that's not different from a one-click solution, where everybody can download the document: This document *still* is copyrighted. All you have to respect is the law, and that's normal for any public place. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-12 18:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xppboclyi.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #34887 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >> No, only people who agree (or pretend to agree) to certian onerous terms >> can register. > Well, you do have to accept some terms when you download a document, but > just to register, there are no terms. OK, for "register" I should have said "download", whoops. > The terms of downloading a document vary; e.g. the ARMv7-M reference > manual says that while it is non- confidential, any disclosure > requires you to notice ARM before and their approval (this is stupid > and onerous, I think that's the arm64 manual that we're currently discussing, so yeah, there are stupid and onerous terms. > Of course, if you use that access as Aaron Schwartz did, to violate the > copyright, I don't remember any allegation that Swartz violated any copyrights. He downloaded a pile of journal articles to his laptop computer but was arrested before he did anything with them. IIRC, the prosecutor theorized that Swartz intended to make infringing copies of the stuff he downloaded and would have done it if they hadn't stopped him. But that theory was never proven and the evidence for it was pretty weak. An alternative theory was that he was planning to run statistical analyses on the content and publish the results in a non-infringing way (he did something like that with Wikipedia, look for "who writes Wikipedia"). With Swartz gone, nobody will ever know what his real intentions were. > But that's not different from a one-click solution, where everybody > can download the document: This document *still* is copyrighted. All > you have to respect is the law, and that's normal for any public place. Copyright places certain restrictions on what you can do with the document, but it still leaves you with considerable freedom as long as you don't make new copies (e.g. you can resell copyrighted books that you bought, despite the wishes of certain companies). If ARM tries to place additional restrictions that the law doesn't place, then it's obviously different from just requiring you to follow the law.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-13 21:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m6i671$et$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #34889 |
Paul Rubin wrote: > I think that's the arm64 manual that we're currently discussing, so > yeah, there are stupid and onerous terms. No, we are talking about the ARMv8 architectural manual, which only requires you to respect copyright. In any case, all these conditions you have to accept when you download an ARM document are "licenses", similar to software EULAs, and therefore derived from copyright. >> Of course, if you use that access as Aaron Schwartz did, to violate the >> copyright, > > I don't remember any allegation that Swartz violated any copyrights. He > downloaded a pile of journal articles to his laptop computer but was > arrested before he did anything with them. He wanted to publish all of them. And while JSTOR apparently did see that Swartz had a good point, the prosecuter still handled the case as if it was a capital crime (35 years, WTF?). IMHO, Swartz was prosecuted that way, because he already had freed the (actually public, but very expensive to access) documents from PACER, and the legal system just took the next opportunity to go after him. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web