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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #54441 > unrolled thread

Memory

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

Contents

  Memory rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-26 17:16 -0500
    Re: Memory Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-01-26 20:48 -0600
      Re: Memory minforth@arcor.de - 2017-01-27 03:39 -0800
        Re: Memory Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-01-27 13:27 -0600
          Re: Memory rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 14:50 -0500
          Re: Memory Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-01-27 19:53 +0000
      Re: Memory mhx@iae.nl - 2017-01-28 07:40 -0800
      Re: Memory Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-28 16:01 -0800
        Re: Memory Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-01-28 22:16 -0600
          Re: Memory Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-28 20:31 -0800
            Re: Memory Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-01-29 00:30 -0600
              Re: Memory Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-28 22:39 -0800
                Re: Memory Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-01-29 03:19 -0600

#54441 — Memory

I was reading about Win32Forth and came across the name of Julian Noble, 
so I looked up his passing.  I found this page.

http://www.forth.org/memory.html

I didn't realize so many had passed.  It also struck me when I saw it 
has been 10 years since Min Moore had passed.  I used to follow Chuck's 
blog and recall when that happened.  I guess I'm just getting old.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#54445

On 1/26/2017 4:16 PM, rickman wrote:
> I was reading about Win32Forth and came across the name of Julian Noble,
> so I looked up his passing.  I found this page.
>
> http://www.forth.org/memory.html
>
> I didn't realize so many had passed.  It also struck me when I saw it
> has been 10 years since Min Moore had passed.  I used to follow Chuck's
> blog and recall when that happened.  I guess I'm just getting old.
>
Look at a meeting at SVFIG on YouTube and you will see a lot of very old 
men with scraggly beards. The few Forth users there are are getting old.

This is a cold reminder for the many that want to keep Forth in the 70's 
and not adapt with the times and what people expect a modern language to 
support, soon that generation will pass and possibly Forth with them 
since few young persons are using Forth.

-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

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

#54454

Am Freitag, 27. Januar 2017 03:48:38 UTC+1 schrieb Cecil - k5nwa:
> On 1/26/2017 4:16 PM, rickman wrote:
> > I was reading about Win32Forth and came across the name of Julian Noble,
> > so I looked up his passing.  I found this page.
> >
> > http://www.forth.org/memory.html
> >
> > I didn't realize so many had passed.  It also struck me when I saw it
> > has been 10 years since Min Moore had passed.  I used to follow Chuck's
> > blog and recall when that happened.  I guess I'm just getting old.
> >
> Look at a meeting at SVFIG on YouTube and you will see a lot of very old 
> men with scraggly beards. The few Forth users there are are getting old.
> 
> This is a cold reminder for the many that want to keep Forth in the 70's 
> and not adapt with the times and what people expect a modern language to 
> support, soon that generation will pass and possibly Forth with them 
> since few young persons are using Forth.
> 
> -- 
> Cecil - k5nwa

Don't be too harsh - you will be grizzly yourself too soon. I am with Forth since the late 70's myself, but am certainly deep in modern business.
Forth is Forth like a knife is a knife. Only idiots put it into the same pot as Haskell or you-know-what-fancy-high-level-artificial-intelligence-dialect.

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

#54465

On 1/27/2017 5:39 AM, minforth@arcor.de wrote:
> Am Freitag, 27. Januar 2017 03:48:38 UTC+1 schrieb Cecil - k5nwa:
>> On 1/26/2017 4:16 PM, rickman wrote:
>>> I was reading about Win32Forth and came across the name of Julian Noble,
>>> so I looked up his passing.  I found this page.
>>>
>>> http://www.forth.org/memory.html
>>>
>>> I didn't realize so many had passed.  It also struck me when I saw it
>>> has been 10 years since Min Moore had passed.  I used to follow Chuck's
>>> blog and recall when that happened.  I guess I'm just getting old.
>>>
>> Look at a meeting at SVFIG on YouTube and you will see a lot of very old
>> men with scraggly beards. The few Forth users there are are getting old.
>>
>> This is a cold reminder for the many that want to keep Forth in the 70's
>> and not adapt with the times and what people expect a modern language to
>> support, soon that generation will pass and possibly Forth with them
>> since few young persons are using Forth.
>>
>> --
>> Cecil - k5nwa
>
> Don't be too harsh - you will be grizzly yourself too soon. I am with Forth since the late 70's myself, but am certainly deep in modern business.
> Forth is Forth like a knife is a knife. Only idiots put it into the same pot as Haskell or you-know-what-fancy-high-level-artificial-intelligence-dialect.
>
No interest here on Haskel or anything like it although I like 8th for 
the desktop but that is as far as I'm willing to venture out away from 
Forth. On the other end of the scale I like eForth for use with FPGA 
CPUs which is somewhat a minimal Forth.

Too many want to keep Forth worse than the 1970s as the Standard is so 
full of ambiguities, standards are suppose to clear ambiguities not 
create them, and that is the main issue I see with Forth these days. 
That will be the final nail on the coffin which is a shame as Forth has 
so much potential specially in the embedded field. In the embedded area 
I tend to think that Forth will stay alive and well, being used as a 
"secret" weapon for the few in the know.

Back to my cave, I'm trying to install eForth on a esp8266 CPU but I'm 
having some issues.



-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

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

#54466

On 1/27/2017 2:27 PM, Cecil Bayona wrote:
> On 1/27/2017 5:39 AM, minforth@arcor.de wrote:
>> Am Freitag, 27. Januar 2017 03:48:38 UTC+1 schrieb Cecil - k5nwa:
>>> On 1/26/2017 4:16 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>> I was reading about Win32Forth and came across the name of Julian
>>>> Noble,
>>>> so I looked up his passing.  I found this page.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.forth.org/memory.html
>>>>
>>>> I didn't realize so many had passed.  It also struck me when I saw it
>>>> has been 10 years since Min Moore had passed.  I used to follow Chuck's
>>>> blog and recall when that happened.  I guess I'm just getting old.
>>>>
>>> Look at a meeting at SVFIG on YouTube and you will see a lot of very old
>>> men with scraggly beards. The few Forth users there are are getting old.
>>>
>>> This is a cold reminder for the many that want to keep Forth in the 70's
>>> and not adapt with the times and what people expect a modern language to
>>> support, soon that generation will pass and possibly Forth with them
>>> since few young persons are using Forth.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cecil - k5nwa
>>
>> Don't be too harsh - you will be grizzly yourself too soon. I am with
>> Forth since the late 70's myself, but am certainly deep in modern
>> business.
>> Forth is Forth like a knife is a knife. Only idiots put it into the
>> same pot as Haskell or
>> you-know-what-fancy-high-level-artificial-intelligence-dialect.
>>
> No interest here on Haskel or anything like it although I like 8th for
> the desktop but that is as far as I'm willing to venture out away from
> Forth. On the other end of the scale I like eForth for use with FPGA
> CPUs which is somewhat a minimal Forth.
>
> Too many want to keep Forth worse than the 1970s as the Standard is so
> full of ambiguities, standards are suppose to clear ambiguities not
> create them, and that is the main issue I see with Forth these days.
> That will be the final nail on the coffin which is a shame as Forth has
> so much potential specially in the embedded field. In the embedded area
> I tend to think that Forth will stay alive and well, being used as a
> "secret" weapon for the few in the know.
>
> Back to my cave, I'm trying to install eForth on a esp8266 CPU but I'm
> having some issues.

The ambiguous conditions specified in the Forth standard are very, very 
easy to resolve.  Any time you see something that creates an ambiguous 
condition, consider that it says, "You are not allowed to do that" and 
the condition is resolved the same way it is in other languages... :)

-- 

Rick C

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

#54467

On 1/27/2017 19:27, Cecil Bayona wrote:

>
> Too many want to keep Forth worse than the 1970s as the Standard is so
> full of ambiguities, standards are suppose to clear ambiguities not
> create them, and that is the main issue I see with Forth these days.

There are conflicting here on clf opinions about standards. Some don't 
care much for them, some love them but hate ANS Forth ("we need 
standards, but this standard? Yeuch!") and some think ANS Forth is a 
viable base to work from.

This is a new category. Who are the many who want Forth worse than the 
1970s?


> That will be the final nail on the coffin which is a shame as Forth has
> so much potential specially in the embedded field. In the embedded area
> I tend to think that Forth will stay alive and well, being used as a
> "secret" weapon for the few in the know.

Perhaps that is its metier.

-- 
Alex

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

#54487

On Friday, January 27, 2017 at 3:48:38 AM UTC+1, Cecil - k5nwa wrote:
> Look at a meeting at SVFIG on YouTube and you will see a lot of very old 
> men with scraggly beards. The few Forth users there are are getting old.
> 
> This is a cold reminder for the many that want to keep Forth in the 70's 
> and not adapt with the times and what people expect a modern language to 
> support, soon that generation will pass and possibly Forth with them 
> since few young persons are using Forth.

When I started using Forth (around 1982), everybody outside the Dutch FIG
seemed to be very old, too. I remember that I read postings by Anton Ertl
and imagined him being a stone-age curmudgeon with a long white beard and a pedal-driven EMACS teletype. That was a mistake.

I also remember that at that time everybody, even the enthusiasts, thought 
that Forth would be dead in a few years and that Pascal and BASIC would take over. 

-marcel

-marcel

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

#54504

Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> writes:
> Look at a meeting at SVFIG on YouTube and you will see a lot of very
> old men with scraggly beards. The few Forth users there are are
> getting old.

You see the same thing at Lisp conferences.  The ideas of Lisp are alive
and thriving everywhere, though the implementation details of crufty old
systems are mostly of interest to their original users.

> Back to my cave, I'm trying to install eForth on a esp8266 CPU but I'm
> having some issues.

This might interest you:

http://hackaday.com/2016/12/23/interactive-esp8266-development-with-punyforth/

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

#54511

On 1/28/2017 6:01 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> writes:
>> Look at a meeting at SVFIG on YouTube and you will see a lot of very
>> old men with scraggly beards. The few Forth users there are are
>> getting old.
>
> You see the same thing at Lisp conferences.  The ideas of Lisp are alive
> and thriving everywhere, though the implementation details of crufty old
> systems are mostly of interest to their original users.
>
>> Back to my cave, I'm trying to install eForth on a esp8266 CPU but I'm
>> having some issues.
>
> This might interest you:
>
> http://hackaday.com/2016/12/23/interactive-esp8266-development-with-punyforth/
>
After I get eForth working, I was going to try punyForth also.

eForth for the esp8266 is disappointing, eForth usually it's written in 
assembler for the primitives but the esp8266 flavor is not, it's written 
in C which is not the end of the world but on top of that it is a token 
threaded Forth not know for it's speed instead it's used to save on 
memory which the esp8266 has plenty of. It's not a total loss as it 
could be useful to quickly port eForth to a FPGA CPU, or an oddball CPU.

I'm having some issues with eForth as the tools used don't run under 
Win10 64 bit OS, they were developed with Xp 32 bit version. So I'm 
setting up a Win7 32 bit Virtual PC to be able to run the software, but 
I'm also working on setting up a real PC with a quad core CPU with Win7 
32 bits for all the old odd software that won't run under Win10 X64.


-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

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

#54512

Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> writes:
> eForth for the esp8266 is disappointing, eForth usually it's written
> in assembler for the primitives but the esp8266 flavor is not, it's
> written in C which is not the end of the world but on top of that it
> is a token threaded Forth not know for it's speed instead it's used to
> save on memory which the esp8266 has plenty of.

A traditional ITC Forth would be relatively slow too compared with
native code and subroutine threading.  The esp8266 is fast compared to
older MCUs and the even faster ESP32 is available now.  In fact you can
even run Python on the esp8266 (micropython.org).  What are you doing
that makes speed a worry?

> It's not a total loss as it could be useful to quickly port eForth to
> a FPGA CPU, or an oddball CPU.

Is it the one below?  It looks nice to me and I got it running on a PC
without any trouble, iirc:

  http://chiselapp.com/user/tehologist/repository/compc/home

> I'm having some issues with eForth as the tools used don't run under
> Win10 64 bit OS, they were developed with Xp 32 bit version. 

What tools are those?  I'm used to completely self-hosted eforths.

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

#54514

On 1/28/2017 10:31 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> writes:
>> eForth for the esp8266 is disappointing, eForth usually it's written
>> in assembler for the primitives but the esp8266 flavor is not, it's
>> written in C which is not the end of the world but on top of that it
>> is a token threaded Forth not know for it's speed instead it's used to
>> save on memory which the esp8266 has plenty of.
>
> A traditional ITC Forth would be relatively slow too compared with
> native code and subroutine threading.  The esp8266 is fast compared to
> older MCUs and the even faster ESP32 is available now.  In fact you can
> even run Python on the esp8266 (micropython.org).  What are you doing
> that makes speed a worry?
>
>> It's not a total loss as it could be useful to quickly port eForth to
>> a FPGA CPU, or an oddball CPU.
>
> Is it the one below?  It looks nice to me and I got it running on a PC
> without any trouble, iirc:
>
>   http://chiselapp.com/user/tehologist/repository/compc/home

Nope but I will look at it later in the week.

>
>> I'm having some issues with eForth as the tools used don't run under
>> Win10 64 bit OS, they were developed with Xp 32 bit version.
>
> What tools are those?  I'm used to completely self-hosted eforths.
>

That is what I'm used but in reality most eForth are written in 
Assembler to create a core which is added to, the esp8266 version is 
totally different. It is written in Arduino C++ for the primitives and 
the virtual machine, and he uses a F# Forth compiler with a Meta add-on 
to generate Forth tokens that are executed by the Arduino code. F# will 
not run on a 64 bit Win10 PC. I'm in the process of setting up a Win7 32 
bit CPU so the software will work.

The eForth I been working with are not available for free, they use a 
Meta-Compiler to generate target object code so its a subroutine 
threaded output, I was hoping that it would be a version of those, 
instead it generates a list of 8-bit tokens that are interpreted by the 
Arduino code.

As far as speed goes I'm a freak for efficiency on general principles 
and would prefer a Forth that generates subroutine threaded code instead 
of tokens which is the slowest way to implement Forth.

Looking at the esp8266, it's assembly code is quite complex so I see why 
it was done using the Arduino platform, it makes it more machine 
independent as one could easily generate a version for any CPU that has 
a C++ compiler at the cost of being slower.



-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

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

#54515

Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> writes:
> F# will not run on a 64 bit Win10 PC. I'm in the process of
> setting up a Win7 32 bit CPU so the software will work.

Oh that's weird, I'm surprised F# doesn't work in win10-64.  I thought
it was a supported .NET language so they'd have made it work.

F# is close enough to Ocaml that maybe you can convert the compiler if
the source is available and not too large.

> The eForth I been working with are not available for free

Interesting, I didn't know there were commercial versions.  Who is the
vendor if I can ask?

> Looking at the esp8266, it's assembly code is quite complex 

Similar to the MIPS-32, I thought

> generate a version for any CPU that has a C++ compiler at the cost of
> being slower.

Hmm, I see GNU Lightning has a Mips back end.  Maybe it can be targeted
to the 8266.  I've looked briefly at those Lightning back ends though,
and they are ugly.  Maybe something like it should be done in Forth
instead.

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

#54517

On 1/29/2017 12:39 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> writes:
>> F# will not run on a 64 bit Win10 PC. I'm in the process of
>> setting up a Win7 32 bit CPU so the software will work.
>
> Oh that's weird, I'm surprised F# doesn't work in win10-64.  I thought
> it was a supported .NET language so they'd have made it work.
>
The F# is not the Microsoft one its a version of eForth for Windows but 
32 bits, F# was a poor choice of names since there is the Microsoft F# 
which is totally different.

> F# is close enough to Ocaml that maybe you can convert the compiler if
> the source is available and not too large.
>
>> The eForth I been working with are not available for free
>
> Interesting, I didn't know there were commercial versions.  Who is the
> vendor if I can ask?

Dr C.H. Ting sells it, the other versions come with a meta compiler, and 
with excellent documentation a walk-through of all the words in eForth 
and how it all works,
>
>> Looking at the esp8266, it's assembly code is quite complex
>
> Similar to the MIPS-32, I thought

Its a Harvard architecture CPU so I don't think they are close as the 
Mips is a von Neumann architecture.

>
>> generate a version for any CPU that has a C++ compiler at the cost of
>> being slower.
>
> Hmm, I see GNU Lightning has a Mips back end.  Maybe it can be targeted
> to the 8266.  I've looked briefly at those Lightning back ends though,
> and they are ugly.  Maybe something like it should be done in Forth
> instead.
>


-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web