Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #16222 > unrolled thread
| Started by | gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-10-12 13:36 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-10-18 23:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 18 on this page of 158 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 13:36 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-12 22:49 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 00:06 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-13 22:34 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 16:46 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-14 00:24 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-14 19:09 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 01:46 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-15 04:25 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 05:35 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 16:43 -0400
The "memory wall" (was: mr paysan ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-15 09:28 +0000
Re: The "memory wall" (was: mr paysan ...) Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 03:02 -0700
Re: The "memory wall" (was: mr paysan ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-15 12:50 +0000
Re: The "memory wall" (was: mr paysan ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-15 14:47 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 00:10 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-18 21:53 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 01:00 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-18 22:18 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-19 09:11 +0000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-15 03:17 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 16:52 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-16 02:20 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 00:13 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 00:07 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-13 20:53 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-15 15:41 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 07:01 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-15 09:31 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-15 19:51 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 17:47 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk> - 2012-10-16 11:10 +0100
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 15:55 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk> - 2012-10-16 21:31 +0100
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 17:06 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-16 20:56 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-16 23:44 -0500
Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-17 10:01 +0000
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-17 21:11 -0500
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 01:08 -0700
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-18 11:42 -0500
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 15:26 -0400
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-18 09:25 +0000
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-18 11:46 -0500
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 15:28 -0400
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-18 12:44 -0700
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-18 18:49 -0500
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 20:16 -0400
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-18 17:28 -0700
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-19 03:00 +0200
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 18:00 -0400
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-19 11:35 +0000
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-19 10:33 -0500
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-18 18:35 +0200
Re: Transputers, was Re: mr paysan .. gavinoshit Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-18 12:06 -0500
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 13:23 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-17 11:58 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 15:22 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-17 21:53 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 16:00 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-17 23:10 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 17:28 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-18 00:11 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 15:41 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 17:27 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-15 15:28 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 19:07 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 19:09 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-16 01:21 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-15 22:26 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-15 22:35 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-16 01:50 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-15 22:54 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 16:00 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-17 06:40 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 13:32 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-17 21:10 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 15:45 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-19 19:45 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 15:58 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-17 06:32 -0400
"Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-16 11:46 +0000
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-10-16 16:09 +0000
Re: "Too much data" rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 16:04 -0400
Re: "Too much data" Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-16 11:37 -1000
Re: "Too much data" anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-17 14:00 +0000
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 13:25 -0700
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-17 14:08 +0000
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 01:31 -0700
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-18 16:42 +0000
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) Ouatu Bogdan <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 18:41 +0000
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 12:20 -0700
Re: "Too much data" Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-16 21:10 -0700
Re: "Too much data" humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 05:01 -0700
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 23:55 -0700
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2012-10-17 00:06 -0700
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-17 10:25 +0000
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-17 14:21 +0000
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-17 17:54 +0200
Re: "Too much data" (was: mr paysan where is your chip? ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-17 15:58 +0000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-16 01:27 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-15 08:02 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-15 11:39 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Bill Marcum <bill@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-10-21 03:31 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 17:15 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-16 10:00 +0000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 00:27 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-15 17:10 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 00:30 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-16 01:38 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-15 22:48 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-15 21:18 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-16 21:31 +1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-16 16:56 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2012-10-16 11:26 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-17 12:30 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-17 22:35 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-17 18:15 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-10-18 16:45 +0000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-19 00:31 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-18 22:34 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 01:01 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 01:06 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 02:16 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-19 19:51 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-19 18:25 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-20 16:49 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-20 22:49 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-19 22:02 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-20 17:07 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-20 14:48 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-21 02:56 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-20 22:30 -0700
Trains [Was: mr paysan where is your chip?] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-21 04:46 -0500
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-18 19:28 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 00:33 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 01:00 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-19 11:45 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-10-18 18:26 +0000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-18 08:45 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-19 00:43 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-22 13:07 +1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-21 19:24 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-10-22 05:15 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-22 14:33 +0000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Spam@ControlQ.com - 2012-10-22 12:06 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-23 10:44 +0000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-10-22 09:29 -0500
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-22 16:30 +0200
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-16 08:52 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-17 18:25 +1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-17 08:33 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Frank Thomason <Frank@Thomason.com> - 2012-10-17 15:31 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-10-18 12:37 -0700
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-18 15:57 -1000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-16 16:09 -0400
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-16 20:27 +0000
Re: mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-18 23:38 -0700
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
| From | gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-19 00:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <3d54ab14-0ec1-4e1e-81d4-dbbeb97a4442@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16345 |
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:56:13 AM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > Ed wrote: > > > Yes but how many times can one claim Forth's lack of traction in the > > > marketplace is due to bad luck, lack of marketing, poor education, > > > inadequate Standards, hobbyists etc. When one runs out of excuses, > > > what fact remains? > > > > IMHO the main fact that I see as limiting for Forth is its strangeness. > > Forth is only suitable for people who don't fear strange things. > > > > Example: I have a recumbent bike. Not many people do have recumbent > > bikes, as they look strange. It depends on age - when I drive through a > > group of kids, I get comments like "cool bike!" and "I want that, too!" > > When I drive through a group of near-retirement adults, I get comments > > like "strange/awful/fearsome bike!" and some people even raised concerns > > about how to steer it (there is a handlebar attached to the front wheel, > > you know?) or that I need to turn the pedals with my hands or something > > similarly silly - people who have seen me riding it, and I certainly > > push the pedals with my feets, and have my hands on the handlebar - > > which is underneath my seat. > > > > A recumbent bike looks "all wrong" for people who are used to upright > > bikes. A Forth compiler or program looks "all wrong" to people who are > > experienced with C or similar languages. > > > > In the Forth community, the number of people who ride a recumbent bike > > is significantly larger. Recumbent bikes have a similar lack of > > traction in the bicycle world, even though they are more secure, more > > comfortable, and faster than normal bikes. Why? It's obvious that they > > are just too strange for adults who have settled their believes and are > > no longer in explorative mode. > > > > Therefore, I think Dirk is right: If you want to make Forth popular, get > > the kids. I'm not sure if you get the kids with a cheap controller > > board (maybe it's more interesting to them to program their beloved > > phones), but all experience we have in the Forth community with kids is > > that they get it pretty quickly and that they don't have the problems > > experienced programmers have with Forth: It isn't "too strange" for > > them. > > > > I've made the experience that when you suggest changing habits to people > > who have settled, they interpret it immediately as insult. When I said > > to my ex-boss that I'm not going to have a stop-over flight to San > > Francisco, but I take the direct flight instead, he had to approve that > > (the direct flight was even slightly cheaper), but he complained > > bitterly that I made them all look stupid. Look, they *were* stupid. > > It's not my fault for pointing out the obvious. But these people like > > to kill the messenger, and stay as stupid as they are. > > > > When I was younger, I often wondered why the most retarded technology > > seems to get the most traction. Ugly processors like PIG^HC or 8051, > > x86, DOS/Windows, nowadays things like PHP. When you ask people why > > they have chosen them, the response is always "because that's what the > > majority has chosen". Sheeple don't think for themselves, they follow > > the herd. The herd is stupid. And stupid people - when forced to make > > a decision - get it wrong. At least most of the time. IBM has chosen > > x86 and DOS, and nobody was ever fired for buying IBM - that's the way > > these people finally make their decisions: "Even if it might be wrong > > (which is inevitable, because I'm stupid), I'm not going to be blamed." > > > > Retarded technology for retarded people. If you want to use Forth, you > > have to hide it. Inside the JavaScript compiler. As boot system, > > inside a controller. Or, as Carrier IQ demonstrated: In some pre- > > installed spyware. Most Forth success stories are projects where the > > Forth system is hidden. This is not by accident. Look e.g. at National > > Instruments: They had a Forth system, Asyst, to glue all the instruments > > together. They replaced it with Labview. And Labview is a huge > > success. Labview is very deliberately written *not* to alienate anybody > > stupid, especially not the deciders, who have never seen a real program, > > but only flow-chars or data-flow graphs. That's how you program Labview > > - you paint data/control flow graphs, looks like a textbook > > illustration. Your boss will be able to pretend to understand it. It > > does not make him look stupid, as ": foo @ swap over + ! ;" would. > > > > Maybe I'm even wrong with Lua as user-visible language for my net2o > > effort. Maybe a Labview/Matlab-like approach would be the real way to > > success. > > > > -- > > Bernd Paysan > > "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" > > http://bernd-paysan.de/ Ease of use trumps technical power, ask big bill. I agree people are idiots a lot in business. Redhat linux is more of a pain than archlinux for example, and yet redhat is big public company and its shitty distro is all over the place, you can't seem to get away from it. Freebsd even seems better or any of netbsd, nixos, tinycore, dragora linux. It's amazing. The people using php probably feel safer since php has been used so many times successfully to implement websites. Forth it seems has not, and despite all my prodding hey hey can I see a forth powered website no go. I am in a funny position because to learn php would probably get me more jobs than learning forth. The idea that forth is more efficient I beleive and wish to exploit but to make a website with dynamic content, which is my goal, I have been told forth is not a good idea as it is a longer road. I would like also to know why specifically you don't think php is a good tool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-22 13:07 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <k629rc$eku$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #16345 |
Bernd Paysan wrote: > Ed wrote: > > Yes but how many times can one claim Forth's lack of traction in the > > marketplace is due to bad luck, lack of marketing, poor education, > > inadequate Standards, hobbyists etc. When one runs out of excuses, > > what fact remains? > > IMHO the main fact that I see as limiting for Forth is its strangeness. > Forth is only suitable for people who don't fear strange things. > > Example: I have a recumbent bike. Not many people do have recumbent > bikes, as they look strange. It depends on age - when I drive through a > group of kids, I get comments like "cool bike!" and "I want that, too!" > When I drive through a group of near-retirement adults, I get comments > like "strange/awful/fearsome bike!" and some people even raised concerns > about how to steer it (there is a handlebar attached to the front wheel, > you know?) or that I need to turn the pedals with my hands or something > similarly silly - people who have seen me riding it, and I certainly > push the pedals with my feets, and have my hands on the handlebar - > which is underneath my seat. > ... I agree Forth attracts a small audience who find it "cool". However it's not fear of the new that causes others to reject it. Forth is a hobbyists' language - for folks who like to tinker and talk more than they need to program. Other languages gave one a black box with the instruction "go away and program", Forth gave hobbyists the opportunity to participate in the language without ever needing to write applications! Occasionally Forth gets used for real work and it has supported a few vendors - though not to the extent they wish. In FD v5n6 p.40 (1984) vendors offered substantial cash prizes and grants in an effort to boost Forth's fortunes. Putting aside who Forth is for, if there was one aspect of the language that deters prospective users I would say it is Forth's stack and RPN syntax. It's not what folks expect of a high-level language. There are even Forthers who have issues with it. HP tried RPN in their calculators and had to concede the public didn't want it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-21 19:24 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <7xzk3fw8f5.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #16554 |
"Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> writes: > Putting aside who Forth is for, if there was one aspect of the language > that deters prospective users I would say it is Forth's stack and RPN > syntax. It's not what folks expect of a high-level language. There are > even Forthers who have issues with it. HP tried RPN in their calculators > and had to concede the public didn't want it. RPN worked extremely well in calculators and HP RPN calculators were successful (preferred by geeks) for decades. Eventually the geekier calculators morphed into small computers and RPN became less attractive. I like the picture that Forth in the 1970's/80's was sort of a poor man's Lisp machine, in the sense of being a total OS-compile-develop-edit-debug environment that ran the whole computer but worked in a small mini or micro instead of a fancy workstation. The stack and RPN syntax was the price of putting all that functionality into 8K of ram or thereabouts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-22 05:15 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <50850ec9$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16554 |
On 10/21/12 11:07 PM, Ed wrote: > HP tried RPN in their calculators > and had to concede the public didn't want it. You can buy from a selection of new HP scientific and financial RPN calculators today. If HP has conceded the public doesn't want RPN then why is it still offered on so many of their calculators? Yes, HP offers algebraic in some simpler calculators (and dual mode option on some of its complex ones). But that's just responding to the market for those that prefer parentheses and an = key. -Doug
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-22 14:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <ada88877c192e16b7827266f36d1ae35@remailer.paranoici.org> |
| In reply to | #16567 |
On 10/21/12 11:07 PM, Ed wrote: > HP tried RPN in their calculators > and had to concede the public didn't want it. No, that is just ignorant. HP didn't "try" RPN in their calculators, HP /makes and sells/ RPN calculators. Nearly every calculator HP has ever made until this day is RPN. The newer ones offer algebraic entry as an /option/ for idiots weaned on Casio junk. I have a drawer full of HP calculators and they're all RPN and they're all fantastic. HP has been selling these for decades.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spam@ControlQ.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-22 12:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <alpine.BSF.2.00.1210221203030.32914@yoko.controlq.com> |
| In reply to | #16577 |
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Anonymous wrote: > Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:33:42 +0000 (UTC) > From: Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> > Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth > Subject: Re: mr paysan where is your chip? > > On 10/21/12 11:07 PM, Ed wrote: > >> HP tried RPN in their calculators >> and had to concede the public didn't want it. > > No, that is just ignorant. HP didn't "try" RPN in their calculators, HP > /makes and sells/ RPN calculators. Nearly every calculator HP has ever made > until this day is RPN. The newer ones offer algebraic entry as an /option/ > for idiots weaned on Casio junk. I have a drawer full of HP calculators and > they're all RPN and they're all fantastic. HP has been selling these for > decades. > If I recall correctly, the classic battle was between HP/RPN and Texas Instruments/algebraic. Casio was not a player in serious scientific calculators until a bit later, so busy were they with the digital watches. Cheers, Rob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-23 10:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <9178d59169ffd756821aec0af89ba347@remailer.paranoici.org> |
| In reply to | #16581 |
Spam@ControlQ.com wrote: > On Mon, 22 Oct 2012, Anonymous wrote: > > > Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:33:42 +0000 (UTC) > > From: Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> > > Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth > > Subject: Re: mr paysan where is your chip? > > > > On 10/21/12 11:07 PM, Ed wrote: > > > >> HP tried RPN in their calculators > >> and had to concede the public didn't want it. > > > > No, that is just ignorant. HP didn't "try" RPN in their calculators, HP > > /makes and sells/ RPN calculators. Nearly every calculator HP has ever made > > until this day is RPN. The newer ones offer algebraic entry as an /option/ > > for idiots weaned on Casio junk. I have a drawer full of HP calculators and > > they're all RPN and they're all fantastic. HP has been selling these for > > decades. > > > > If I recall correctly, the classic battle was between HP/RPN and Texas > Instruments/algebraic. Yes and no. They both have their proponents, but no TI owner is crazy enough to say TI's quality or products were ever as good as HP calculators. They were cheaper and ok and they had a couple of home runs. There was never a battle because TI could never compete except on price. But TI people were usually loyal. > Casio was not a player in serious scientific calculators until a bit > later, so busy were they with the digital watches. That's what I meant. TI people /do/ sometimes upgrade to HP but they're the ones who have a clue and can understand the benefits of RPN. The Casio people /always/ need the algebraic mode all their lives or they can't use an HP calculator. Casio still isn't a player in serious anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-22 09:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <QPmdnYCEfOGxxRjNnZ2dnUVZ8tednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #16554 |
Ed <invalid@nospam.com> wrote: > HP tried RPN in their calculators and had to concede the public > didn't want it. This is rather ahistorical, to say the very least. HP used RPN for decades, with considerable success, until the calculator division in Corvallis was abandoned in 2001. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-22 16:30 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <1951799.Pzvcp0noTH@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #16554 |
Ed wrote: > Putting aside who Forth is for, if there was one aspect of the > language that deters prospective users I would say it is Forth's stack > and RPN syntax. It's not what folks expect of a high-level language. You name it: "expect". > There are even Forthers who have issues with it. Really? Several people have written infix packages - bigForth contains a very small one, Andrew Haley presented one a few years ago, but apart of JVNs formula translator, they are just examples of what you can do with Forth; nobody seriously uses them. The main issue we usually have is the "too many variables" problem (see Thinking Forth picture), especially when calling C functions. Then we use locals, but we don't use infix. > HP tried RPN in their > calculators and had to concede the public didn't want it. HP's calculators are one of the most shining success story of Forth, one where Forth is not invisible (yes, System-RPL is Forth, and RPL is a calculator DSL). The calculators are still popular enough to be sold by HP (even though calculators in general are diminishing), and of course they always were controversial - there were HP fans and Casio fans, but the general conclusion is that when you are a real engineer, you use an HP, but when you are a fake, you use Casio. One boss who let me program Forth had a small discussion with me at the start of the project. He said "nobody knows Forth", and then I pointed to his HP calculator and told him "This thing is essentially programmed in Forth, HP calls their version RPL" - "Oh". So the discussion was over. HP did change some things in the design of Forth to make it less confusing, like "IF cond THEN a ELSE b END" instead of "cond IF a ELSE b THEN", and of course RPL as user-level DSL contains the dynamic typing of a Lisp system. START .. STEP and FOR .. NEXT instead of DO .. [+]LOOP has the ranges in the order people do expect them. And it does treat strings as real literals, i.e. "String" instead of some funny space after the first quote. If HP really had to concede that the public didn't want it, why do they still sell them? -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-16 08:52 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <DdednWng3eh1MeDNnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #16341 |
On 10/16/12 1:31 AM, Ed wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 10/15/12 7:38 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> "Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote in message >>> news:5582590.oV2Wc04zOP@sunwukong.fritz.box... >>>> Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>>> Since both Chuck Moore's and Philip Koopman's numerous forrays into >>>>> stack-based, Forth microprocessors were known failures >>>> >>>> Commercial failures: yes, sort-of (RTX made profits, especially with the >>>> radiation-harded RTX2000). Technical failures: not really. >>> >>> Technical in what sense? In the sense, that they were built? Yes, they >>> were successes in that sense. Or, in the sense that they developed new >>> technology that is still used in microprocessors today? No, they were >>> failures in that sense. >> >> I would call a "technical failure" something that didn't work, or didn't >> work well enough to establish a market. The RTX was killed *after* it >> was proven to work, and *before* it went into full production, and the >> reasons were economic in ways independent of anything specific to the >> RTX itself. > > Yes but how many times can one claim Forth's lack of traction in the > marketplace is due to bad luck, lack of marketing, poor education, > inadequate Standards, hobbyists etc. When one runs out of excuses, > what fact remains? The appropriate question to ask is whether in each instance you're looking at a "reason" or an "excuse". If you're trying to blame Forth's lack of traction on technical inadquacy, you need to point to an actual technical shortcoming, not perceptional issues. Perceptions are real and important, but they're in the realm of communication and marketing, not technical issues. 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 | "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-17 18:25 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <k5lmk7$dsf$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #16351 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 10/16/12 1:31 AM, Ed wrote: > > ... > > Yes but how many times can one claim Forth's lack of traction in the > > marketplace is due to bad luck, lack of marketing, poor education, > > inadequate Standards, hobbyists etc. When one runs out of excuses, > > what fact remains? > > The appropriate question to ask is whether in each instance you're > looking at a "reason" or an "excuse". > > If you're trying to blame Forth's lack of traction on technical > inadquacy, you need to point to an actual technical shortcoming, not > perceptional issues. Perceptions are real and important, but they're in > the realm of communication and marketing, not technical issues. Is it not a failure of Forth that a product was deemed not sufficiently important to proceed with? From the point of view of forthers, Forth is their world. From the world's viewpoint however Forth may well be insignificant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-17 08:33 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <-YOdnXYjn_94ZOPNnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #16378 |
On 10/16/12 10:25 PM, Ed wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 10/16/12 1:31 AM, Ed wrote: >>> ... >>> Yes but how many times can one claim Forth's lack of traction in the >>> marketplace is due to bad luck, lack of marketing, poor education, >>> inadequate Standards, hobbyists etc. When one runs out of excuses, >>> what fact remains? >> >> The appropriate question to ask is whether in each instance you're >> looking at a "reason" or an "excuse". >> >> If you're trying to blame Forth's lack of traction on technical >> inadquacy, you need to point to an actual technical shortcoming, not >> perceptional issues. Perceptions are real and important, but they're in >> the realm of communication and marketing, not technical issues. > > Is it not a failure of Forth that a product was deemed not sufficiently > important to proceed with? > > From the point of view of forthers, Forth is their world. From the > world's viewpoint however Forth may well be insignificant. That depends on whether the decision to drop the RTX had anything to do with Forth either way. Your last sentence is critical: to us, the RTX was a "Forth chip". To Harris, it was "that new processor" and at the time giving birth to a new processor wasn't something they were prepared to support regardless of its features. If Forth had nothing to do with the decision, it can hardly be considered a "failure of Forth". 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 | Frank Thomason <Frank@Thomason.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-17 15:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <507F0778.1050904@Thomason.com> |
| In reply to | #16400 |
On 10/17/2012 2:33 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 10/16/12 10:25 PM, Ed wrote: >> Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>> On 10/16/12 1:31 AM, Ed wrote: > > That depends on whether the decision to drop the RTX had anything to do > with Forth either way. Your last sentence is critical: to us, the RTX > was a "Forth chip". To Harris, it was "that new processor" and at the > time giving birth to a new processor wasn't something they were prepared > to support regardless of its features. If Forth had nothing to do with > the decision, it can hardly be considered a "failure of Forth". > I worked at Harris, on the RTX product, and I can verify that what Elizabeth says is basically correct. Harris' "official" microprocessor product was the CMOS version of Intel's 286; the RTX effort was considered a waste of resources. After the successful launch of the RTX2000, we approached management with a proposal for what would be needed to develop and support the 32-bit version of the RTX (Phil Koopman's design). Our code name for it was the BINAR (But It's Not An RTX), just to hide the project's origins. Management's response was very negative. That was the beginning of the end of the RTX development.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 12:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <119eff64-1c94-4111-9e5b-46ebcc308580@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16378 |
On Oct 17, 8:27 am, "Ed" <inva...@nospam.com> wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > On 10/16/12 1:31 AM, Ed wrote: > > > ... > > > Yes but how many times can one claim Forth's lack of traction in the > > > marketplace is due to bad luck, lack of marketing, poor education, > > > inadequate Standards, hobbyists etc. When one runs out of excuses, > > > what fact remains? > > > The appropriate question to ask is whether in each instance you're > > looking at a "reason" or an "excuse". > > > If you're trying to blame Forth's lack of traction on technical > > inadquacy, you need to point to an actual technical shortcoming, not > > perceptional issues. Perceptions are real and important, but they're in > > the realm of communication and marketing, not technical issues. > > Is it not a failure of Forth that a product was deemed not sufficiently > important to proceed with? > > From the point of view of forthers, Forth is their world. From the > world's viewpoint however Forth may well be insignificant. Of course not. In this particular case, "Forth" is nothing more than the instruction set.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 15:57 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <VJGdnagOrpUGLh3NnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #16455 |
On 10/18/12 9:37 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > On Oct 17, 8:27 am, "Ed" <inva...@nospam.com> wrote: >> Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>> On 10/16/12 1:31 AM, Ed wrote: >>>> ... >>>> Yes but how many times can one claim Forth's lack of traction in the >>>> marketplace is due to bad luck, lack of marketing, poor education, >>>> inadequate Standards, hobbyists etc. When one runs out of excuses, >>>> what fact remains? >> >>> The appropriate question to ask is whether in each instance you're >>> looking at a "reason" or an "excuse". >> >>> If you're trying to blame Forth's lack of traction on technical >>> inadquacy, you need to point to an actual technical shortcoming, not >>> perceptional issues. Perceptions are real and important, but they're in >>> the realm of communication and marketing, not technical issues. >> >> Is it not a failure of Forth that a product was deemed not sufficiently >> important to proceed with? >> >> From the point of view of forthers, Forth is their world. From the >> world's viewpoint however Forth may well be insignificant. > > Of course not. In this particular case, "Forth" is nothing more than > the instruction set. > There are no indications that the decision had anything whatever to do with instruction set. The design was being accepted by major firms such as Allen Bradley -- we might have had RTX's in industrial control devices all over the world today. No, the decision was made at a much higher corporate level for reasons having to do with corporate resource management. 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 | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-16 16:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <k5keub$bbo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16341 |
On 10/16/2012 7:31 AM, Ed wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 10/15/12 7:38 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> "Bernd Paysan"<bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote in message >>> news:5582590.oV2Wc04zOP@sunwukong.fritz.box... >>>> Rod Pemberton wrote: >>> ... >>> >>>>> Since both Chuck Moore's and Philip Koopman's numerous forrays into >>>>> stack-based, Forth microprocessors were known failures >>>> >>>> Commercial failures: yes, sort-of (RTX made profits, especially with the >>>> radiation-harded RTX2000). Technical failures: not really. >>> >>> Technical in what sense? In the sense, that they were built? Yes, they >>> were successes in that sense. Or, in the sense that they developed new >>> technology that is still used in microprocessors today? No, they were >>> failures in that sense. >> >> I would call a "technical failure" something that didn't work, or didn't >> work well enough to establish a market. The RTX was killed *after* it >> was proven to work, and *before* it went into full production, and the >> reasons were economic in ways independent of anything specific to the >> RTX itself. > > Yes but how many times can one claim Forth's lack of traction in the > marketplace is due to bad luck, lack of marketing, poor education, > inadequate Standards, hobbyists etc. When one runs out of excuses, > what fact remains? Are you suggesting that it just *sucks*??? Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vandys@vsta.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-16 20:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: mr paysan where is your chip? |
| Message-ID | <ae5u91Fabr4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #16358 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you suggesting that it just *sucks*???
For more and more applications, it would be the Wrong Choice. I just
quickly typed in the following, which tallies use of words in input
text, and then reports by word and then by count of incidences. I
didn't have to think about word length limits or number of word limits,
nor did I have to fuss with storage allocation and recovery. I used
just low level Python data structures, not any prebuilt higher level
classes.
Languages need to climb a curve of expressiveness (generators and
lambda were later additions to Python). At some point, they become
unwieldy to further evolve, and then you look for the best points to
carry forward into a new generation of programming language.
Forth did OK as it evolved in place. We're to the point where it
really needs to have its best bits carry forward to something new.
I can't say how to do that; every time I attempt the exercise
I map out something which sucks. The thing which is needed is
obvious by its absence.
Andy Valencia
==================================
import sys
res = {}
for l in sys.stdin:
for w in l.split():
res[w] = res.get(w, 0) + 1
print "Sorted by word:"
for w in sorted(res.keys()):
print w, res[w]
print "Sorted by incidences:"
for w,count in sorted(res.iteritems(), key=lambda tup: tup[1]):
print w, count
--
Andy Valencia
Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/
To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-18 23:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11d943c7-0e23-4f20-933d-f8b86d1decc6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16223 |
On Friday, October 12, 2012 1:49:06 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote: > gavino_himself wrote: > > > > > mr paysan where is your chip? where is the personal computer pwoered > > > by paysan cpu? that runs firefox and is liek 10x faster than amd? > > > > As far as I can tell, the last development using my chip will go into an > > iPod battery monitor - or already went, because Apple and the company > > that produced it are quite secretive. It has 2 or 4k of RAM, and it > > won't run any firefox. It's *not* a PC CPU. It's a deeply embedded > > CPU. I think you should have a beer with Rod Pemberton, who will in > > deep explain you the fundamental difference between the two things. > > > > The other thing I designed, the 4stack CPU, is a 15 year old diploma > > thesis. I don't think it will be that competitive today. Though, when > > I look at all the ARMs around, which can be 10 times slower than a low- > > end AMD, maybe I'm wrong. > > > > -- > > Bernd Paysan > > "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" > > http://bernd-paysan.de/ so no hope of browsing web in forth without linux?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web