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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #16222 > unrolled thread

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?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  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 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

#16324 — 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> wrote in message
news:7xtxtvofxl.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
> Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> writes:
> > Perhaps it's considered too difficult to write code that operates on a
> > stack (where access to data is constrained by the order in which it is
> > on the stack) as opposed to code that accesses data via registers
> > (essentially random access).
>
> Stack processors including Chuck's have added registers to deal with the
> insufficiency of pure stacks for implementing useful code.  Without the
> registers you end up having to use memory to hold temporary or other
> very frequently accessed values.

Exactly.  Memory is generally much slower than registers.  Registers are
usually implemented in very fast RAM and use a faster bus.

> > I think the world missed a good opportunity. There was a chance to
> > explore an avenue of processor design where processors could have
> > perhaps been an order of magnitude less complex, with the payoffs in
> > performance and power consumption that that brings. Instead, we seemed
> > to go down the "the more complex the better" route.
>
> "order of magnitude" sounds pretty dubious even for very simple
> processors.  Chuck's F18 has around 7000 transistors (I guess that
> doesn't count the memory arrays) and I think this is comparable to the
> classic 8-bit micros that were sort of similar in capability.  I could
> accept that the F18's performance is X percent better for some moderate
> X, but I don't believe 10 times better.

From another post of mine a five years ago:

8088 core (29000 transistors)
6502 core (9000 transistors)
Z80 core (8500 transistors)

So, the F18 is definately comparable on a transistor count basis
to "classic 8-bit micros".


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16301 — 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?

On 10/15/12 4:01 AM, Mark Wills wrote:
> Bernd:
>> Commercial failures: yes, sort-of (RTX made profits, especially with the
>> radiation-harded RTX2000).  Technical failures: not really.
>
> I'm inclined to agree. The figures shown in the Koopman book that I
> have show stack based processors (at that time, based on the
> technology and production processes of that time) to be faster at just
> about everything (IIRC) than 'conventional' processors.
>
> For some reason, they just didn't get any traction. Maybe it just
> about where the investment/R&D dollars are, not the technology per-se.
> I guess they were just 'too different'. Perhaps it's considered too
> difficult to write code that operates on a stack (where access to data
> is constrained by the order in which it is on the stack) as opposed to
> code that accesses data via registers (essentially random access).
> Personally, I don't find it particularly difficult, and I'm sure I'd
> take to writing 'Forth assembly' like a duck to water.
>
> I think the world missed a good opportunity. There was a chance to
> explore an avenue of processor design where processors could have
> perhaps been an order of magnitude less complex, with the payoffs in
> performance and power consumption that that brings. Instead, we seemed
> to go down the "the more complex the better" route.

The problem wasn't lack of "market traction". They had a number of 
important design wins, but the fact that just as Harris was about to go 
into full production (a very cash-intensive process) the company made an 
unfortunate acquisition (I believe of the semiconductor div. of RCA, 
although I could be remembering wrong) which consumed their cash and 
they had to halt further development of the RTX except for the rad-hard 
RTX2010s.

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]

#16303 — 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?

On Monday, October 15, 2012 8:02:24 PM UTC+2, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> The problem wasn't lack of "market traction". They had a number of 
> important design wins, but the fact that just as Harris was about to go 
> into full production (a very cash-intensive process) the company made an 
> unfortunate acquisition (I believe of the semiconductor div. of RCA, 
> although I could be remembering wrong) which consumed their cash and 
> they had to halt further development of the RTX except for the rad-hard 
> RTX2010s.
> 
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth
> 
Yes, HARRIS bought INTERSIL and the INTERSIL management took over, killing the RTX2000.
A HARRIS insider told me back then - believe it or not - that HARRIS had to decide if they invest a lot of money into high volume fabs to feed the automobile market with RTX2000, and they didn't like to.
As I read now, they preferred to buy INTERSIL instead.

DB.
We are all tolerant as long as the other behaves as expected.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16534 — 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?

On 10/15/2012 02:39 PM, visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 15, 2012 8:02:24 PM UTC+2, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
>> The problem wasn't lack of "market traction". They had a number of
>> important design wins, but the fact that just as Harris was about to go
>> into full production (a very cash-intensive process) the company made an
>> unfortunate acquisition (I believe of the semiconductor div. of RCA,
>> although I could be remembering wrong) which consumed their cash and
>> they had to halt further development of the RTX except for the rad-hard
>> RTX2010s.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Elizabeth
>>
> Yes, HARRIS bought INTERSIL and the INTERSIL management took over, killing the RTX2000.
> A HARRIS insider told me back then - believe it or not - that HARRIS had
> to decide if they invest a lot of money into high volume fabs to feed
> the automobile market with RTX2000, and they didn't like to.
> As I read now, they preferred to buy INTERSIL instead.
>
> DB.
> We are all tolerant as long as the other behaves as expected.
>
RCA made the CDP1802 microprocessor, which I think is still made by 
Harris/Intersil. I'm on a mailing list of hobbyists who still use the 
1802. Perhaps Intersil bought RCA's semiconductor division before Harris 
bought them?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16310 — 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?

On 10/15/2012 10:01 AM, Mark Wills wrote:
>
> I think the world missed a good opportunity. There was a chance to
> explore an avenue of processor design where processors could have
> perhaps been an order of magnitude less complex, with the payoffs in
> performance and power consumption that that brings. Instead, we seemed
> to go down the "the more complex the better" route.

When people complain about the "complexity" of mainstream processors, 
they often don't take into account the inherent speed they are capable 
of.  Today's laptops run rings around any other CPU in existence.  That 
is why they are at the heart of the industry.  ARMs are taking over from 
the low end, but they are the same thing, just smaller versions which 
are working from the other end upward rather than the high end downward.

A MISC processor (or even an array) is not a substitute for a CISC or a 
RISC.  Different horses for different courses.

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16339 — 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?

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 07:01:54 -0700 (PDT), Mark Wills
<forthfreak@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bernd:
>> Commercial failures: yes, sort-of (RTX made profits, especially with the
>> radiation-harded RTX2000). =A0Technical failures: not really.
...
>For some reason, they just didn't get any traction. Maybe it just
>about where the investment/R&D dollars are, not the technology per-se.

The reasons for the halting of the Harris RTX development projects are
several and a little strange. Just to set the record straight, but it
was a very long time ago and I have probably got some things wrong.
Here are a few items.

Harris took over the Intersil and RCA semiconductor products. The
RTX "champion" at Harris was reassigned to takeover management.

A third-party fab was being negotiated. Iraq invaded Kuwait and the
third party got cold feet and pulled out.

There were probably other factors.

From a technical view, the RTX2000 was not a good machine on which
to run C. Even then, a new CPU had to be a good target for C in order
to achieve commercial success. The RTX4000 (32 bit CPU) was a
different beast, but it was cancelled too.

Stephen

-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16477 — 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?

On Monday, October 15, 2012 7:01:55 AM UTC-7, M.R.W Wills wrote:
> Bernd:
> 
> > Commercial failures: yes, sort-of (RTX made profits, especially with the
> 
> > radiation-harded RTX2000).  Technical failures: not really.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm inclined to agree. The figures shown in the Koopman book that I
> 
> have show stack based processors (at that time, based on the
> 
> technology and production processes of that time) to be faster at just
> 
> about everything (IIRC) than 'conventional' processors.
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason, they just didn't get any traction. Maybe it just
> 
> about where the investment/R&D dollars are, not the technology per-se.
> 
> I guess they were just 'too different'. Perhaps it's considered too
> 
> difficult to write code that operates on a stack (where access to data
> 
> is constrained by the order in which it is on the stack) as opposed to
> 
> code that accesses data via registers (essentially random access).
> 
> Personally, I don't find it particularly difficult, and I'm sure I'd
> 
> take to writing 'Forth assembly' like a duck to water.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the world missed a good opportunity. There was a chance to
> 
> explore an avenue of processor design where processors could have
> 
> perhaps been an order of magnitude less complex, with the payoffs in
> 
> performance and power consumption that that brings. Instead, we seemed
> 
> to go down the "the more complex the better" route.

how can someone not attempt to exploit this profitably?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16309

On 10/15/2012 9:41 AM, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> Idiots like gavino

What!!!??? @@!!***

How dare you call Gavino an "Idiot"???  You should be washing his feet 
and dropping rose petals on the ground in front of him when he walks. 
No, you aren't worthy, obviously.

Gavino rules!


> Stack
> processors are alien and unknown, and that's the main reason for
> rejecting to use them.

I once worked at a company making array processors, which were DSP chips 
in a double rack cabinet (yes, I'm that old).  They had a 9U eurocard 
holding an IO processor (a DMA engine) based on a sequencer from a bit 
slice family.  I added some code to the home brewed assembler so I could 
add a new instruction to help with self test.  Management (if you call 
what they had management) was aghast that I dared to change the 
microcode assembler!  Jeeze, one damn new instruction and you thought 
the world would end!!!  I can't imagine what they would have done if I 
suggested using a different architecture!

Have fun!

Rick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16478

On Monday, October 15, 2012 2:11:03 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
> On 10/15/2012 9:41 AM, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> 
> > Idiots like gavino
> 
> 
> 
> What!!!??? @@!!***
> 
> 
> 
> How dare you call Gavino an "Idiot"???  You should be washing his feet 
> 
> and dropping rose petals on the ground in front of him when he walks. 
> 
> No, you aren't worthy, obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> Gavino rules!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Stack
> 
> > processors are alien and unknown, and that's the main reason for
> 
> > rejecting to use them.
> 
> 
> 
> I once worked at a company making array processors, which were DSP chips 
> 
> in a double rack cabinet (yes, I'm that old).  They had a 9U eurocard 
> 
> holding an IO processor (a DMA engine) based on a sequencer from a bit 
> 
> slice family.  I added some code to the home brewed assembler so I could 
> 
> add a new instruction to help with self test.  Management (if you call 
> 
> what they had management) was aghast that I dared to change the 
> 
> microcode assembler!  Jeeze, one damn new instruction and you thought 
> 
> the world would end!!!  I can't imagine what they would have done if I 
> 
> suggested using a different architecture!
> 
> 
> 
> Have fun!
> 
> 
> 
> Rick

everyone knows I am a genius by now anyhow

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16326

"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 understand that your simple troll-mind can only provoke, and not gain
> knowledge.

Can you _possibly_ state something without an insult included?

> > by the end of
> > the 1980's or early 1990's, what made you believe your stack-based
> > design would be a success?
>
> Come on:  This was a cool diploma thesis.  The motivation to make a cool
> diploma thesis is not to get rich quickly, but to explore things nobody
> else has tried before, i.e. combining things that looked promising from
> a technical point of view (VLIW+stacks).  That's how you make progress.

Stack machines looked promising after well publicized market failures?

I guess you were slightly out of touch with reality at the time.

> [insult relocated]
...

> Even if it is not a commercial success, I have learned a lot, and
> got a degree.  Learning a lot is the main point of writing a diploma
> thesis, so it was a tremendous success.
...

> (to be precise: I don't mean you personally with "you".  Idiot's can't
> make progress, so maybe you can figure out why "you personally" is
> ruled out).

Well, declaring me to be an idiot puts you in an intectual class similar to
that of Albert Einstein.  So, genius, why did the EU get the peace prize
(insert any prestigious intellectual, scientific, or humanitarian award)
and not you?

> [...] Stack processors are alien and unknown, and that's the main
> reason for rejecting to use them.

Seriously? (rhetorical)

You know full well that the efficiency of register based processors is the
reason stack processors aren't used.

The 6502 demonstrated this the best.  It had processor registers, stack in
memory, and fast zero-page memory access.  The fast zero-page access was
used to provide a psuedo-register file.  This processor, by itself, clearly
demonstrated that registers, even psuedo-registers, and not stacks, were far
more efficient.

> >> C compilers had just reached the point of
> >> unmaintainability, i.e. the point where further progress is almost
> >> impossible or at least requires to start over from scratch.
> >
> > Now, that's an interesting an claim.  I'm sure the list of reasons
> > would be interesting, to me, or, at least, amusing.
>
> Why should I go down to your level of discussion?  You will definitely
> beat me with your experince of being an idiot, being subtle offensive,
> and misunderstand everything I write.  I should rather keep you in my
> killfile.

If you had killfiled me as you've stated you would at least three times
now, you wouldn't have responded to this post.

I'm not a Usenet newb.  How is your memory?  I've been posting to
c.l.f. for six years.

I was  first introduced to Usenet in the late 1980's.  But, I didn't start
posting to Usenet until a few years ago.

> You could instead look at the history of GCC development, which at that
> time struggled under Kenner, was forked to EGCS, and the maintainers of
> EGCS struggled for years to get things into GCC which had been state of
> the art, like SSA-trees.
>
> And it's not just GCC: llvm has exactly the same problems; the code llvm
> now generates for Gforth remind me on the 3.x series of GCC, and while
> GCC 4.x generates better code than llvm, it has not fully recovered.
> They now try to change language (move to C++) in GCC, but llvm is
> already written in C++; it doesn't really help.

I was hoping for a list of what was unmaintainable with modern C compilers,
what limited their progress, and what required their current implementations
to be discarded.  I've seen nothing of the sort of claimed issues with any
of the C compilers I've used, or even those that I'm aware of.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16330

"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> writes:
> I was hoping for a list of what was unmaintainable with modern C compilers,
> what limited their progress, and what required their current implementations
> to be discarded.  I've seen nothing of the sort of claimed issues with any
> of the C compilers I've used, or even those that I'm aware of.

I've been involved in GCC development in the not-very-recent past.  It
is a grand old program that has built up a lot of cruft over the years
and become hard to maintain.  I do think using C++ will help some.  But
frankly I agree with LCC co-author Chris Fraser, who says that C is a
lousy language for writing compilers in (ref:
http://stackoverflow.com/a/809954 ).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16332

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.

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]

#16341 — Re: mr paysan where is your chip?

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?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16345 — Re: mr paysan where is your chip?

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/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16350 — Re: mr paysan where is your chip?

On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:56:13 PM UTC+2, 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/

I totally agree. I have the same experience.
But I don't hide Forth.
There will be a day of accepting Forth.

Dirk Bruehl

"We are all totally tolerant - as long as the other behaves as expected!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16403 — Re: mr paysan where is your chip?

Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
> 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? 

From what I have heard, they are much less maneuverable than normal
bikes.  They are also harder to see in traffic, because the rider is
lower.  

> and some people even raised concerns ... that I need to turn the
> pedals with my hands or something similarly silly -

They do make some hand-propelled ones and some where both the hands and
feet are used (I think some kind of speed record was set with one of
those).  So it seems like a reasonable question to me.

> 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 complained
> bitterly that I made them all look stupid.

Flying from Europe to San Francisco takes something like 10 hours and I
can understand why most people wouldn't want to sit on a nonstop flight
for that long.  Since the nonstop flight was a little cheaper, your boss
may have been concerned that upper management would now start pressuring
everyone to take the nonstop flights.

> 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.

Obviously first-mover advantage has a huge part.  The PIC and 8051
offered high levels of integration at low cost compared to the
alternatives when they were introduced, DOS ran the original IBM PC,
etc.  But, I'd say that PHP is really quite nice for beginners and
simple uses even now.  It's easy to learn, it comes with a lot of useful
libraries that languages like Python are missing, and it's very well
documented.  It's also quite efficient compared to many alternatives in
certain environments (massive shared hosting).  Its disadvantages only
start to be felt once you're doing more complicated things.

> 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.

They used to say similar things about Lisp...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16407 — Re: mr paysan where is your chip?

Paul Rubin wrote:

> Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>> 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?
> 
> From what I have heard, they are much less maneuverable than normal
> bikes.  They are also harder to see in traffic, because the rider is
> lower.

That's what you *heard*.  You don't have any own experience.  A "short-
wheeler" is about as easy to maneuver as a normal bike; however, if you 
need jumping of some sort, you can't do it (it's not a BMX or similar).  
And typical recumbent bikes - with rider - are about as high as a normal 
car.  In winter, when it's snowing, I use my upright (because I don't 
have the right tires for snowy weather on my recumbent).  I feel 
completely invisible on the upright.

>> and some people even raised concerns ... that I need to turn the
>> pedals with my hands or something similarly silly -
> 
> They do make some hand-propelled ones

Those are wheel-chairs (including the ones with hand+feet).  Yes, some 
people seem to confuse a recumbent bike with a wheel-chair, as well, and 
ask me why I use this, as I obviously have healthy legs.

> and some where both the hands
> and feet are used (I think some kind of speed record was set with one
> of those).

Don't know, the speed records are usually achieved by good aerodynamics.  
Muscle strength is not an issue with riding a bicycle, it's getting 
enough oxygen inside.  That's why Tour de France winners take Epo.

> So it seems like a reasonable question to me.

Even when the rider is riding it and you can look at what he does?  
Nope.  The kids don't ask me those questions.  These are questions of 
people who have made their mind up and don't need input any longer.
 
>> 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 complained
>> bitterly that I made them all look stupid.
> 
> Flying from Europe to San Francisco takes something like 10 hours and
> I can understand why most people wouldn't want to sit on a nonstop
> flight for that long.

It talkes 11 hours from Munich and it takes 10:45 from London (San 
Francisco is mostly north¹ to us, so going westwards doesn't help).  So 
they chose to fly to London first, which means taking an early morning 
flight, waiting 3 or 4 hours in the BA lounge, going through security 
again, etc.  It all makes so much more sense you now explained me that 
they simply can't do the additional 15 minutes nonstop.  I deliberately 
only travel with hand-luggage for such a trip, because I don't want to 
waste another hour for checking in my luggage.

¹) Some flat-earthers sitting next to me complained that taking the 
detour over greenland was unnecessary.

> Since the nonstop flight was a little cheaper, your
> boss may have been concerned that upper management would now start
> pressuring everyone to take the nonstop flights.

No, the price was a non-issue.  Upper management deliberately said that 
for inter-continental flights, comfort is more important than cost, 
unless the cost is excessive (i.e. no first class allowed).

>> 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.
> 
> Obviously first-mover advantage has a huge part.  The PIC and 8051
> offered high levels of integration at low cost compared to the
> alternatives when they were introduced, DOS ran the original IBM PC,

Which was somewhat late to that market... but was the first "acceptable" 
to buy for people who are driven by fear.

> etc.  But, I'd say that PHP is really quite nice for beginners and
> simple uses even now.  It's easy to learn, it comes with a lot of
> useful libraries that languages like Python are missing, and it's very
> well
> documented.  It's also quite efficient compared to many alternatives
> in
> certain environments (massive shared hosting).  Its disadvantages only
> start to be felt once you're doing more complicated things.

Or trying to secure your account database ;-).

>> 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.
> 
> They used to say similar things about Lisp...

Indeed.  For a long time, Emacs was about the most visible success story 
of Lisp.  And all the Lisp-haters dismissed Emacs ;-).

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16418 — Re: mr paysan where is your chip?

Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
> That's what you *heard*.  You don't have any own experience.  A "short-
> wheeler" is about as easy to maneuver as a normal bike;

Including at very low (walking) speeds, which are sometimes necessary on
city streets due to having to keep moving and wait for traffic at the
same time?

> And typical recumbent bikes - with rider - are about as high as a
> normal car.

Some people do use recumbents around here and I can tell you, they are
harder to see from a car.  Maybe not all models are like that.

> Don't know, the speed records are usually achieved by good aerodynamics.  
> Muscle strength is not an issue with riding a bicycle, it's getting 
> enough oxygen inside.  That's why Tour de France winners take Epo.

Speed records aren't endurance contests like the Tour de France.
They're about getting the maximmum possible instantaneous power.  So it
probably helps to use more muscles at the same time.

>> [Munich o San Francisco]
> they chose to fly to London first

That does sound a little odd, unless they wanted to shop at Heathrow
Airport (lots of overpriced stores there) or something like that.  More
sensible would be to stop in (e.g.) New York which is about 6 hours from
Munich, I think.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16438 — Re: mr paysan where is your chip?

Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>> That's what you *heard*.  You don't have any own experience.  A "short-
>> wheeler" is about as easy to maneuver as a normal bike;
>
>Including at very low (walking) speeds, which are sometimes necessary on
>city streets due to having to keep moving and wait for traffic at the
>same time?

Sure, that's no problem.  It seems to be a problem for car drivers,
though (at least here where hydraulic automatic transmissions are
rare), and they still drive on city streets.

>> Don't know, the speed records are usually achieved by good aerodynamics.  
>> Muscle strength is not an issue with riding a bicycle, it's getting 
>> enough oxygen inside.  That's why Tour de France winners take Epo.
>
>Speed records aren't endurance contests like the Tour de France.
>They're about getting the maximmum possible instantaneous power.  So it
>probably helps to use more muscles at the same time.

The same bikes (e.g. Varna Tempest) are used for the "Fastest Human
list" and the "Fastest Hour list"
<http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/fastest_list.asp>, and AFAIK
they are all just pedal driven.  Even for the Fastest Human, where the
measured distance (200m) takes only about 5s, one has to accelerate to
that speed first, and maximum power has to be used for much more than
5s.

>>> [Munich o San Francisco]
>> they chose to fly to London first
>
>That does sound a little odd, unless they wanted to shop at Heathrow
>Airport (lots of overpriced stores there) or something like that.  More
>sensible would be to stop in (e.g.) New York which is about 6 hours from
>Munich, I think.

Pick up the baggage there, go through immigration, check in the
baggage, miss the connecting flight because immigration took too long,
yes, what wouldn't we do for a stopover.

- 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 2012: http://www.euroforth.org/ef12/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#16463 — Re: mr paysan where is your chip?

Anton Ertl wrote:
>>Speed records aren't endurance contests like the Tour de France.
>>They're about getting the maximmum possible instantaneous power.  So
>>it probably helps to use more muscles at the same time.
> 
> The same bikes (e.g. Varna Tempest) are used for the "Fastest Human
> list" and the "Fastest Hour list"
> <http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/fastest_list.asp>, and AFAIK
> they are all just pedal driven.  Even for the Fastest Human, where the
> measured distance (200m) takes only about 5s, one has to accelerate to
> that speed first, and maximum power has to be used for much more than
> 5s.

The speed record for 1/4 mile standing start (drag racing) also went to 
a pedal driven bicycle, the Lightning X-2.  I couldn't find anything on 
the more recent "Concept Z'" bike's record, but apparently, these drag 
races aren't very popular.

Here's the list:

http://www.whpva.org/land.html

There is one record of a type -3 bike (that's the only hand+foot-powered 
bike in the list), from 1977.

> Pick up the baggage there, go through immigration, check in the
> baggage, miss the connecting flight because immigration took too long,
> yes, what wouldn't we do for a stopover.

What I still don't understand is why you have to sit upright on these 
intercontinental flights in economy class.  It's not good for your 
health, and when you arrange the seats clever enough, you can fit about 
as many people as with normal upright seats.

http://iloapp.freazer.de/blog/worldtour?ShowFile&image=1292553561.jpg

This is a sleeper bus in Vietnam, as these busses are very popular for 
long distances in Asia.  They fit 42 seats into one bus, with three 
rows, that's not less than upright seats with four rows (7 rows with 
1.1m spacing instead of 11 rows with 70cm spacing).  The people who 
design aircrafts should ocassionaly use other means of transportations, 
too.  For inspiration.  BTW: the hand luggage goes underneath the bottom 
seats, not to the top.  For take off and landing, you probably want an 
upright position, and then you might need some zig-zag arrangement of 
the seats this bus doesn't have.  The beds don't have to be completely 
flat.

This is a starting point (three economy class seats become a bed for two 
persons who like to cuddle on each other), but you can do better:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1246145/Air-New-Zealand-offer-
economy-class-lie-beds.html

It at least allows you to have your legs not below your buttock, which 
is an absolute minimum for healthy long-hour seating.

IMHO this all demonstrates a total inability to think out of the box.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web