Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #27495 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-12-28 23:39 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-01-03 14:52 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 330 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-28 23:39 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-28 21:52 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-12-29 11:28 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-12-29 23:12 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-29 07:45 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-12-29 18:33 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-29 16:57 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-12-30 00:25 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-01 13:29 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-01 14:18 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-01 15:46 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-01 15:26 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-03 13:22 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 11:54 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-06 10:57 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 14:07 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-06 12:42 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 14:22 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-03 09:06 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 11:10 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-04 11:49 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-05 13:14 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-04 16:35 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-05 11:35 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-05 06:15 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-05 15:11 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-05 10:07 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-05 21:14 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-06 04:44 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-06 12:42 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-06 21:51 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-06 22:41 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-07 03:29 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2014-01-07 11:48 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-07 12:58 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-07 15:13 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-07 10:22 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-08 02:20 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-07 14:13 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-09 23:19 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-10 17:19 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-10 09:02 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-13 13:28 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 09:05 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-14 04:05 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 12:36 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-15 11:37 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-13 17:07 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-11 01:40 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-13 11:21 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-13 01:50 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-13 12:05 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-13 03:19 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-13 03:36 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-12 19:22 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-11 17:09 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-02 17:06 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-02 08:13 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-02 18:59 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 12:54 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 07:19 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-29 22:32 -0500
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 16:46 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-30 18:37 -0500
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2013-12-31 11:53 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 17:21 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:03 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 18:09 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:43 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 16:52 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-02 08:32 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-05 13:26 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-04 16:55 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-07 12:45 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-06 22:15 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-15 08:39 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-05 12:53 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 13:45 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-02 20:17 -0500
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 04:03 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 13:43 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 11:53 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-01 23:57 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-01 13:19 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 19:48 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-02 19:13 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 15:44 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 23:56 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-02 15:43 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-02 15:34 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 04:14 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 17:49 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 12:03 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-03 10:31 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-03 19:19 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-03 09:56 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-04 04:18 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-04 12:39 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 21:43 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-03 13:45 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 23:10 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-03 15:41 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 22:05 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-04 04:21 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-10 06:46 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-07 13:33 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-07 08:44 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 14:52 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-08 08:41 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 08:14 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-07 18:41 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 15:09 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-08 20:00 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-08 12:45 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 00:16 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 22:34 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 22:41 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-10 23:12 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 23:04 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-10 22:08 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-09 02:16 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 04:18 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 11:19 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 09:04 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-10 17:27 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-10 11:37 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-10 12:47 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-10 13:37 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-10 14:24 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-13 16:53 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 14:50 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 09:08 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 18:33 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 12:32 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-09 20:49 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 09:10 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 14:37 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-07 08:48 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 15:24 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-08 08:50 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 08:28 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-08 16:21 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 09:39 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 04:28 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 11:27 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 14:42 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 09:41 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-09 18:44 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 12:35 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-10 00:20 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-10 05:22 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-01-10 03:48 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-10 09:31 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-09 09:40 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 21:54 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-11 03:41 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-11 13:33 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-11 11:44 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-11 10:40 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-11 04:11 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-11 13:31 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-11 07:52 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-11 19:35 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-12 02:57 -0600
chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-12 03:12 -0600
Re: chipFORTH Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-12 08:43 -0800
Re: chipFORTH Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-12 10:40 -0600
Re: chipFORTH albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-12 18:00 +0000
Re: chipFORTH Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-12 11:18 -0800
Re: chipFORTH anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-13 16:03 +0000
Re: chipFORTH "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-13 17:21 +0000
Re: chipFORTH stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-13 19:10 +0000
Re: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-13 02:28 -0500
Re: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?] Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-12 21:39 -1000
Re: chipFORTH [Was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-13 03:16 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-12 11:38 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-12 07:46 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-13 15:46 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-13 10:45 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-13 19:05 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-13 20:53 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-14 03:41 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-14 13:07 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-14 17:53 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-14 17:35 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-14 08:23 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-14 13:19 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-14 12:31 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-14 21:37 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-14 16:12 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-14 12:18 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-15 04:19 +0100
DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-15 17:52 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-15 21:56 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-16 09:30 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> - 2014-01-17 12:44 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash oh2aun@gmail.com - 2014-01-17 08:05 -0800
Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-17 16:43 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-17 20:37 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 04:40 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-18 11:56 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 10:54 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-18 17:36 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 12:17 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-18 18:23 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 14:00 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-18 20:24 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-18 14:05 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-18 23:12 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-19 03:38 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-19 14:03 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-19 09:17 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-19 15:31 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-19 19:48 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-18 18:11 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-19 01:12 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-19 21:53 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> - 2014-01-20 11:32 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-16 02:02 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-01-16 07:19 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-16 00:22 -0800
Re: DOES> and flash Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-16 15:38 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-01-20 09:45 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-16 09:33 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash (was: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based?) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-16 16:09 +0100
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-17 03:28 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-17 11:39 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-17 08:16 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-17 16:06 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-18 17:21 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-19 12:32 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-19 09:19 -0600
Re: DOES> and flash stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-19 18:20 +0000
Re: DOES> and flash Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-20 01:25 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 08:31 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-14 01:33 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 10:05 +0000
CREATE...DOES> on program-in-flash systems anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-14 11:58 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-11 08:43 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-11 19:37 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-11 11:28 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-11 12:24 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-03 18:19 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 22:03 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 13:28 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-03 15:09 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 03:41 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 18:09 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 04:16 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 22:58 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2013-12-29 22:34 -0500
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-29 19:30 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-29 22:49 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2013-12-30 08:48 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 16:24 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 11:18 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 17:32 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:05 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 11:02 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 05:48 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 11:00 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-12-31 21:42 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2013-12-30 09:14 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 03:35 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 16:06 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 10:41 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-12-30 17:50 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:21 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 11:21 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-02 07:08 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 11:13 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 07:36 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 15:23 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 16:02 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-03 08:54 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 19:59 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-03 10:12 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <st@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 20:17 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 20:29 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-03 11:48 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-04 12:00 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-04 13:12 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-04 08:22 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-01-10 21:37 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 16:58 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-02 16:41 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-02 16:54 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 23:22 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-02 23:20 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 11:56 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-30 08:14 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-30 12:54 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-12-31 23:15 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-12-31 07:05 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-31 09:26 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-01 13:27 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-12-31 18:21 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-01-01 12:12 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-03 15:59 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-03 00:19 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-05 13:25 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? mhx@iae.nl - 2014-01-04 19:03 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-06 14:08 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-01-06 01:47 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-07 12:43 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 13:29 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-01-08 16:30 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-11 23:12 +1100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 14:30 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-01-04 13:57 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-04 12:17 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-04 15:08 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-05 04:57 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-05 09:14 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-05 12:20 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 13:05 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-08 08:55 -1000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 08:49 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-19 11:24 -0500
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2014-01-04 16:06 -0800
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-07 13:47 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2013-12-30 18:29 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-02 09:34 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-02 20:06 -0500
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 11:34 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-03 08:04 -0500
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-03 07:38 -0600
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 15:57 +0100
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-03 14:17 +0000
Re: PICK changed from 1-based to 0-based? Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-03 14:52 +0000
Page 13 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 17 Next page →
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-11 11:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xr48e5nd7.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #27807 |
stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) writes: > Our CPU of choice for low/medium volume applications runs at nearly > 200 MHz, has 1 Mb of Flash and 192 kb of RAM. The distinction > and tool partitioning tend to be driven by product volume > and cost sensitivity. My stuff is low volume and not terribly cost sensitive, but wants very small physical packages. They don't seem to make that part that way. There is a new PJRC Teensy (Teensy 3.1) with a relative of that STM32F you're referring to. It has 256k of flash and 64k of ram which is still enough for a rather fancy Forth system. With 192k I'd be thinking of programming in something like Lisp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | visualforth@rocketmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-11 12:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f1aa1f9-1dac-49fa-aaca-3ab65f9ebec4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #27801 |
On Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:11:20 AM UTC-5, Andrew Haley wrote: > visualforth.com wrote: > >> On Friday, January 3, 2014 1:03:17 PM UTC-5, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> No, only if you are doing something exceedingly odd: interactively >>> programming a system, with no cross compiler, with the dictionary in >>> flash. Sure, you can do that, but I can't think of any reason that >>> anyone would do it... >> >> Hard to believe, but this is where Forth came from: >> Forth is an Operating System. >> Seems to be some people don't understand. > > Furthermore, > > I understand perfectly well: it was fairly standard to run a resident > Forth on small systems when I wrote the 1988 article. The problem was > that they were't as productive a programming environment as PCs and > that precious target memory was wasted on the parts of Forth needed > for interaction but not the application. One solution was to write > and debug the program on a PC, but then you'd have to emulate parts of > the system and the emulation was always imperfect. I always disliked > that, and much preferred to do all the development on the real > hardware. > > Also, the real product as shipped was unlikely to have enough spare > memory to run a full interactive system so if anything went wrong in > the field you wouldn't be able to debug the system. > > Our desire was a programming environment that was just as productive > and enjoyable as Forth on a PC even when programming the smallest > microcontroller. > > Andrew. I see. Now you wrote about your own personal experience and your conclusions on your personal experience. I have a different history. I started way before PCs have been available, using a keypad and seven-segment-display monitoring the target firmware, writing my programs with pencil and paper in assembly language, looking up the machine code from a table. So I learned how important structural programming is and how important it is to have direct access to the I/O (this was the only possible way back then) and immediately testing the results, programming bottom up. And I wrote my own VM to make my kind of programming more effective. Then I got RSC-Forth, giving me the possibility to add mass storage to my embedded systems, and still having the opportunity to access the I/O directly. I always left the whole RSC-Forth on board, because this was good for maintenance, and in case filed software documentation got lost, it was still there as part of the firmware. RSC-Forth has the possibility to compile headerless, but I never needed to do so. Once I had a project which needed additions, but the on chip flash was to small to hold these additional words. So I made a little addition to the RSC-Forth compiler to compile executable Forth-Code into the I2C-EEPROM which was on board. Worked great. Is there any other programming language which can execute commands directly from EEPROM? When I got my first PC, I abandoned the in-system mass storage (for which I had written my own editor, by the way) and used a terminal program especially for RSC-Forth which I wrote using UR/Forth, later I ported this terminal program to Win32Forth abandoning the block system, using files since then. Why should I ever simulate the firmware on a PC instead of testing it directly in system? Anyway, I did even this, running and testing number crunching parts on a PC with Win32Forth of my firmware which was originally written in RSC-Forth - only a few adaptation words were needed to close the gap. All the time I hated that often enough programs had to be typed twice: once for testing and once edited to the whole program. That's why I developed the 4E4th-IDE to make real incremental programming possible - with the 4E4th-IDE everything has to be typed only once, tested and eventually corrected, and at the end there is a file with the completed program. For now this is only for small systems for education, to show that new programming methods are possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <52c6ff3c$0$25265$e4fe514c@dreader34.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #27645 |
In article <la6png$v0u$1@online.de>, Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:
>Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Defining : <BUILDS CREATE ; is a very small burden for a system, but
>>> jumping through hoops to get CREATE DOES> implemented on systems
>>> that have problems is a much bigger burden.
>>
>> But it's only a burden *to them*. Let the people with the odd systems
>> shoulder that burden; it's not a great burden, and is a direct
>> consequence of the weird architecture.
>
>I'll remember your argument and will shoot down any complaints from
>something that is specific to the systems you are concerned about ;-). The
>standard cares about much weirder systems like one's complement, nibble
>addressed systems or such (and IMHO we shouldn't do that, because nobody
>programs for them). Small controllers with flash for the program memory are
>*the default* in the embedded world - it's *not* a weird architecture, it is
>the state of the art - until ReRAM is ready. You exclude something very
>popular for Forth systems from the standard, or at least make it quite
>difficult? Really?
>
>Come on, folks. People here (Elizabeth) suggested to use cross compiling on
>chips that can't implement CREATE, even though they are fine to use
>interactively without cross compiler when you have <BUILDS. WTF? They have
>enough flash to host a system. Obviously there are other people out there
>who have seen those problems, too, and they decided to go cross compiler or
>umbilical system for those problematic chips, because they just couldn't
>implement a standard Forth on them. This means the standard is broken.
>
>The complaint about 64 bit systems for sure is that it is mostly
>inconvenient. It wastes a bit cache space, but only a few percent. The
>complaint about embedded microcontrollers with flash is that you can't do it
>and have to go to <BUILDS. The burden for larger systems to have an alias
>of <BUILDS to CREATE is ridiculously small, the burden of small systems to
>implement CREATE properly is much larger.
>
>So far, the question whether small system implementers want to follow the
>standard is usually answered with a "no, because you can't do it". Some of
>the small chips have weird Harward architectures which can't fit well into a
>standard model. Others just have troubles implementing CREATE DOES>, and
>maybe want a slimmed down CORE, which is possible, because you are allowed
>to ship parts of CORE just as source to load. Why exclude those systems?
The MSP430 is a system with code in flash and a very small RAM (<256 bytes)
The noforth implementation has CREATE DOES> and I didn't hear Albert Nijhof
complain that it was difficult.
(This is the system that was demonstrated at the German Forth Tagung,
you were there.)
There is a slide explaining the difference between compiling to flash
and ram:
C, and , work naturally in ROM.
ALLOT works with here.
o there are consequence of the system being in RAM.
It ends with
"
DOES> can be used after both types of CREATE.
"
http://home.hccnet.nl/anij/nof/noforth.html
The slides of the presentation are in noforth-beethoven.zip
I used noforth myself for a demonstration where noforth itself
was compiled with gforth on a Raspberry pi, then used to build
a turnkey on the MSP430 that played big ben on the silver
tingle tangle.
I used CREATE DOES> for the note duration, not even realizing that
it was problematic.
P.S. Turnkey-ing and removing a turnkey program are all nicely done.
IMO it is better overall than the German 4e4th.
>
>--
>Bernd Paysan
Groetjes Albert
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 22:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <la78jc$nqm$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #27650 |
Albert van der Horst wrote: > I used noforth myself for a demonstration where noforth itself > was compiled with gforth on a Raspberry pi, then used to build > a turnkey on the MSP430 that played big ben on the silver > tingle tangle. > I used CREATE DOES> for the note duration, not even realizing that > it was problematic. noForth defers the setting of the doer until FIND finds that word first time. This is certainly another clever trick that doesn't cause much trouble, because the usual CREATE DOES> flow usually sets the doer before the word is used first, and if you would use <BUILDS, this is an actual hard requirement (you can't use <BUILDS words before you set the doer with DOES>). So yes, there are tricks to make CREATE DOES> possible even without the dual-write trick I use. However, it is certainly considerably more expensive (takes more of the precious program space of a tiny system) than a straight-forward <BUILDS. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 13:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jan3.142832@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27599 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>The other problem with the CREATE DOES> approach is programming into flash:
>The usual rule is that you can write every flash cell *once*. So if you do
><BUILDS you get a header that waits for one DOES> to patch it up. This is
>fine, as <BUILDS without DOES> doesn't need to be meaningful. CREATE
>without DOES> however needs to be meaningful, so patching up the code field
>of CREATE is necessary, but (on this class of systems) impossible.
But in standard Forth several DOES> can be used on a CREATEd word; so
DOES>-once is not enough. Adding an environmental restriction on
DOES>-once probably does not break that many programs, however.
- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 15:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <la6gah$g10$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #27632 |
Anton Ertl wrote: > But in standard Forth several DOES> can be used on a CREATEd word; so > DOES>-once is not enough. Adding an environmental restriction on > DOES>-once probably does not break that many programs, however. Having such environmental restrictions is fine on embedded systems. The entire dictionary is write-once, so you already have a severe environmental restriction. The resulting program is nonetheless a standard program, i.e. you can reuse it on other Forth systems. Non-harward embedded Forths often have a compile-to-ram and compile-to-rom (really flash) switch, and the problem with RAM mode is just the limited amount of memory and that it's not persistent. So maybe the right way to propose this into a standard would be to add three words (informal description): RAM ( -- ) CORE EXT set the dictionary to RAM space (write many, not persistent) ROM ( -- ) CORE EXT set the dictionary to ROM/flash space (write once, persistent) <BUILDS ( "name" -- ) CORE EXT Create a word header that can be modified with DOES> once. "name" execution: is undefined until DOES> sets the execution semantics of "name". -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-02 03:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <HsOdnY2D38aiqVjPnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27580 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Surely we've been over this many times before. The 83-standard
>> DO..LOOP is hard to describe and hard to understand, and has hideously
>> bad behaviour with 0 0 DO. It was only accepted because at the time
>> it was easily implemented with a neat trick involving the overflow
>> flag, and it worked equally well for signed and unsigned loops. That
>> neat trick often doesn't help make things faster if a loop uses I
>> once, and if it uses I more than once it's actually a disadvantage.
>> The DO..LOOP used by Forth, Inc was much cleaner, and there were two
>> versions, one for signed and one for unsigned loops. It didn't have
>> the pathological behaviour of the 83-standard loop.
>
> Several things in the '83 standard apparently were "trick"-driven. E.g.
> replacing <BUILDS with CREATE: previously, it was considered too difficult
> to implement DOES> with a code-doers header, which is why <BUILDS is there.
AFAIK that was a Forth, Inc thing: once they was pointed out that
<BUILDS is unnecessary, everyone was happy that a word could be
deleted.
> Now the trick which was suggested during the Forth-83 discussions is
> not possible everywhere, so the two-cells header returned rather
> quickly. To be compatible with all Forths from '83 on, you then
> either need a wasted spare second cell in the header (Gforth) or you
> need to implement that trick (many others), even if it is difficult
> to do.
Is this a problem for Forth in C, or something like that?
> '83 made some particular ("new") choices for implementation, which
> aren't trick-related but useful. Using floored division is such an
> example; though actually dividing by a negative number rarely
> happens - floored by unsigned would IMHO have been the better
> choice.
What is "floored by unsigned?"
Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-02 18:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jan2.190905@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27582 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Several things in the '83 standard apparently were "trick"-driven. E.g.
>> replacing <BUILDS with CREATE:
That had already happened in Forth-79. Forth-79 described <BUILDS in
its reference wordset (i.e., words outside Forth-79), but in it's main
wordset DOES> is described as working with CREATE.
>AFAIK that was a Forth, Inc thing: once they was pointed out that
><BUILDS is unnecessary, everyone was happy that a word could be
>deleted.
Not everybody was happy. Even relatively recently, somebody
complained about the switch from <BUILDS to CREATE.
>> Now the trick which was suggested during the Forth-83 discussions is
>> not possible everywhere, so the two-cells header returned rather
>> quickly. To be compatible with all Forths from '83 on, you then
>> either need a wasted spare second cell in the header (Gforth) or you
>> need to implement that trick (many others), even if it is difficult
>> to do.
>
>Is this a problem for Forth in C, or something like that?
Well, how would you implement CREATE...DOES> with ITC and single-cell
code fields portably in C (with labels-as-values)?
>> '83 made some particular ("new") choices for implementation, which
>> aren't trick-related but useful. Using floored division is such an
>> example; though actually dividing by a negative number rarely
>> happens - floored by unsigned would IMHO have been the better
>> choice.
>
>What is "floored by unsigned?"
My guess is that he means signed-by-unsigned division with floored
result.
- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-03 04:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <YIGdnfZJDPSWE1vPnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27597 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote: >>> Several things in the '83 standard apparently were "trick"-driven. E.g. >>> replacing <BUILDS with CREATE: > > That had already happened in Forth-79. Forth-79 described <BUILDS in > its reference wordset (i.e., words outside Forth-79), but in it's main > wordset DOES> is described as working with CREATE. > >>AFAIK that was a Forth, Inc thing: once they was pointed out that >><BUILDS is unnecessary, everyone was happy that a word could be >>deleted. > > Not everybody was happy. Even relatively recently, somebody > complained about the switch from <BUILDS to CREATE. There's always somebody. OK, "to a first-order approximation, everybody". >>> Now the trick which was suggested during the Forth-83 discussions is >>> not possible everywhere, so the two-cells header returned rather >>> quickly. To be compatible with all Forths from '83 on, you then >>> either need a wasted spare second cell in the header (Gforth) or you >>> need to implement that trick (many others), even if it is difficult >>> to do. >> >>Is this a problem for Forth in C, or something like that? > > Well, how would you implement CREATE...DOES> with ITC and single-cell > code fields portably in C (with labels-as-values)? I'll take that as "yes". Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-02 22:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <la4ndo$l22$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #27582 |
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> Several things in the '83 standard apparently were "trick"-driven. E.g.
>> replacing <BUILDS with CREATE: previously, it was considered too
>> difficult to implement DOES> with a code-doers header, which is why
>> <BUILDS is there.
>
> AFAIK that was a Forth, Inc thing: once they was pointed out that
> <BUILDS is unnecessary, everyone was happy that a word could be
> deleted.
>
>> Now the trick which was suggested during the Forth-83 discussions is
>> not possible everywhere, so the two-cells header returned rather
>> quickly. To be compatible with all Forths from '83 on, you then
>> either need a wasted spare second cell in the header (Gforth) or you
>> need to implement that trick (many others), even if it is difficult
>> to do.
>
> Is this a problem for Forth in C, or something like that?
There are several reasons not to do it:
1. data and code spaced too far apart to have a jump from data to code (e.g.
64 bit systems, where the branch instructions all can't branch the entire
memory space). Of course, it's always possible to write several
instructions which are then capable of branching everywhere... first
concatenating a 64 bit literal, and then jumping to that location...
2. Portable systems (i.e. Forth in C) which don't want to add on-the-fly
jump generators for each platform
3. Write-once flash programmed systems, because for CREATE DOES> you need to
write the code field twice.
I have found workarounds against all of those problems, but it's ugly and
usually at least wastes space.
>> '83 made some particular ("new") choices for implementation, which
>> aren't trick-related but useful. Using floored division is such an
>> example; though actually dividing by a negative number rarely
>> happens - floored by unsigned would IMHO have been the better
>> choice.
>
> What is "floored by unsigned?"
Signed double divided by unsigned single cell, round mode: floored. That's
what Forth Inc. proposed, and they lost. This is particularly easy to
implement if you have an unsigned double/unsigned single division, and it is
faster than doing the hardware signed division e.g. on Intel (it is faster,
because all it needs is a conditional add - if you divide d/u, and d is
negative, just add u to the upper part of d, and then divide unsigned).
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-29 22:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op.w8vywhfn5zc71u@localhost> |
| In reply to | #27495 |
On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 02:39:38 -0500, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: > These days, PICK is 0-based, i.e. OVER is equivalent to 1 PICK. > I believe zero-based is a good change. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-29 19:30 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <_IWdne2ZbpNkmVzPnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27518 |
On 12/29/13 5:34 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Sun, 29 Dec 2013 02:39:38 -0500, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > >> These days, PICK is 0-based, i.e. OVER is equivalent to 1 PICK. >> > > I believe zero-based is a good change. Both this one and the truth value were reasonable, it's just that they broke a lot of code and made a lot of people mad. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-29 22:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7xk3emu934.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #27519 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: > Both this one and the truth value were reasonable, it's just that they > broke a lot of code and made a lot of people mad. Yes, this background explains some things. I had the impression that Forth standardization efforts generally try to stick with documenting existing stuff, rather than introducing new stuff or breaking anything. That's why the change from 1 to 0 surprised me. It now sounds like they went the "break stuff" route back in 1983 and are still dealing with the repercussions, so they now stay away from that approach.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AKK <akk@nospam.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 08:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <52c12538$0$9505$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> |
| In reply to | #27520 |
Am 30.12.2013 07:49, schrieb Paul Rubin: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >> Both this one and the truth value were reasonable, it's just that they >> broke a lot of code and made a lot of people mad. > > Yes, this background explains some things. I had the impression that > Forth standardization efforts generally try to stick with documenting > existing stuff, rather than introducing new stuff or breaking anything. > That's why the change from 1 to 0 surprised me. It now sounds like they > went the "break stuff" route back in 1983 and are still dealing with the > repercussions, so they now stay away from that approach. > Well, people back then were young and revolutionary. ;-) Now all Forthers are old and conservative. IMO Forth's evolution is blocked because of some wanting it to stay the ultimate compact embedded systems development tool, whereas others wanting it to be a powerful computer language. BTW the Lisp world once solved that dilemma by forking to the Scheme and CommonLisp paths.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 16:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2013Dec30.172431@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27521 |
AKK <akk@nospam.org> writes:
>IMO Forth's evolution is blocked because of some wanting it to stay the
>ultimate compact embedded systems development tool, whereas others
>wanting it to be a powerful computer language.
That's certainly one area of conflict. The funny thing is that there
is really no point in the standard catering to small embedded systems,
because people writing for really tight environments care more about
compactness and speed than portability and standards-compliance. And
there is always some compactness and speed to be had by foregoing
portability and standards-compliance. And conversely, they won't be
using general portable libraries, because they are much bigger than
some code specialized for their special case.
> BTW the Lisp world once
>solved that dilemma by forking to the Scheme and CommonLisp paths.
Scheme is by no means compact or an embedded systems development tool.
It's a Lisp with static scoping. Later static scoping was integrated
with ideas from other strands of Lisp into Common Lisp, which is a
huge standard, trying to be all things to all people, while Scheme
went more for purity.
- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 11:18 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Ta-dneY-tMBNN1zPnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27530 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > AKK <akk@nospam.org> writes: >>IMO Forth's evolution is blocked because of some wanting it to stay the >>ultimate compact embedded systems development tool, whereas others >>wanting it to be a powerful computer language. > > That's certainly one area of conflict. The funny thing is that there > is really no point in the standard catering to small embedded systems, > because people writing for really tight environments care more about > compactness and speed than portability and standards-compliance. Ah, but even in the small-system embedded world there's a lot to be said for standard languages, even if only as a point of departure. You can always say "CORE except X, Y, and Z." It's still useful. Standardization is not an all-or-nothing. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 17:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2013Dec30.183217@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27535 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> The funny thing is that there
>> is really no point in the standard catering to small embedded systems,
>> because people writing for really tight environments care more about
>> compactness and speed than portability and standards-compliance.
>
>Ah, but even in the small-system embedded world there's a lot to be
>said for standard languages, even if only as a point of departure.
>You can always say "CORE except X, Y, and Z." It's still useful.
Sure, but you don't need a small standard for doing that.
- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-30 12:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <DsudnRbhlcdKKFzPnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27538 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> The funny thing is that there >>> is really no point in the standard catering to small embedded systems, >>> because people writing for really tight environments care more about >>> compactness and speed than portability and standards-compliance. >> >>Ah, but even in the small-system embedded world there's a lot to be >>said for standard languages, even if only as a point of departure. >>You can always say "CORE except X, Y, and Z." It's still useful. > > Sure, but you don't need a small standard for doing that. You need a reasonably small CORE for that really to be useful. All the other packages matter not at all, unless you intend to print it out. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-02 11:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014Jan2.120252@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #27542 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>>>> The funny thing is that there
>>>> is really no point in the standard catering to small embedded systems,
>>>> because people writing for really tight environments care more about
>>>> compactness and speed than portability and standards-compliance.
>>>
>>>Ah, but even in the small-system embedded world there's a lot to be
>>>said for standard languages, even if only as a point of departure.
>>>You can always say "CORE except X, Y, and Z." It's still useful.
>>
>> Sure, but you don't need a small standard for doing that.
>
>You need a reasonably small CORE for that really to be useful.
No. Such a CORE wordset might be a good guidance, but is by no means
necessary; and AFAIK implementors of embedded systems Forth systems
pick and choose among CORE words as well as among others. E.g.,
>NUMBER, # and friends is not necessarily useful on some embedded
systems, whereas AGAIN might be present.
- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-02 05:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <O56dnR5jx628z1jPnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #27584 |
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>> Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes: >>>>Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: >>>>> The funny thing is that there is really no point in the standard >>>>> catering to small embedded systems, because people writing for >>>>> really tight environments care more about compactness and speed >>>>> than portability and standards-compliance. >>>> >>>>Ah, but even in the small-system embedded world there's a lot to be >>>>said for standard languages, even if only as a point of departure. >>>>You can always say "CORE except X, Y, and Z." It's still useful. >>> >>> Sure, but you don't need a small standard for doing that. >> >>You need a reasonably small CORE for that really to be useful. > > No. Such a CORE wordset might be a good guidance, but is by no means > necessary; and AFAIK implementors of embedded systems Forth systems > pick and choose among CORE words as well as among others. E.g., >>NUMBER, # and friends is not necessarily useful on some embedded > systems, whereas AGAIN might be present. Understood, but I don't think it removes the need for a reasonably small CORE. You might argue that the current notion of CORE is not ideal for smaller embedded systems, but then we'd have to decide what we really mean by that. A system without an interpreter might not need NUMBER etc, but that's a very different matter. Small embedded systems that can run an interative Forth system are still small, and still relevant. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web