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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #37348 > unrolled thread

What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth

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

Contents

  What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-03-17 12:47 -0700
    Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-03-17 22:29 +0100
      Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-03-18 10:59 +0000
        Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-03-18 12:04 +0100
          Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-03-18 11:19 +0000
            Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-03-18 12:39 +0100
              Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-03-18 08:05 -1000
                Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-03-18 18:34 +0000
                Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-03-18 20:05 +0100
    Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "Rod Pemberton" <buzz@notnotnontnooatno.cmm> - 2015-03-17 19:11 -0400
      Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-03-19 00:28 -0400
        Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-03-20 01:00 -0400
    Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-03-18 11:33 +0100
      Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-03-18 22:15 +0100
        Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-03-19 07:53 +0100
        Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-03-19 17:17 -0700
        Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-03-20 01:01 -0400
      Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-03-18 18:42 -0400
        Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-03-18 23:56 +0000
          Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-03-19 02:46 +0100
            Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-03-19 09:27 +0000
          Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-03-18 22:21 -0400
            Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-03-19 09:43 +0000
              Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-03-20 02:09 -0400
                Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-03-20 15:41 +0000
                  Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-03-29 16:23 -0400
                    Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 16:43 -0400
                    Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-03-29 22:53 +0100
        Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-03-19 08:00 +0100
          Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-03-20 02:09 -0400
      Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-03-20 14:43 +0100
        ...Tiny targets Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> - 2015-03-23 15:26 +0100
          Re: ...Tiny targets Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-23 10:39 -0700
          Re: ...Tiny targets JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-03-24 01:18 -0700
            Re: ...Tiny targets Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-24 17:45 -0700
              Re: ...Tiny targets JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-03-25 00:08 -0700
                Re: ...Tiny targets Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 00:43 -0700
                  Re: ...Tiny targets Gary Bergstrom <forthprgrmr@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 07:07 -0700
                    Re: ...Tiny targets Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 08:06 -0700
                      Re: ...Tiny targets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 15:19 -0400
                        Re: ...Tiny targets Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-25 12:39 -0700
                        Re: ...Tiny targets Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-03-25 20:42 +0100
                          Re: ...Tiny targets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-03-25 16:41 -0400
                          Re: ...Tiny targets hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-03-25 22:32 -0700
                            Re: ...Tiny targets "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-03-26 09:35 +0000
                              Re: ...Tiny targets Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-03-26 14:52 +0200
                              Re: ...Tiny targets rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-03-27 16:12 -0400
                            Re: ...Tiny targets albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-03-26 13:00 +0000
                          Re: ...Tiny targets anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-03-26 11:58 +0000
                  Re: ...Tiny targets JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-03-25 07:10 -0700
                  Re: ...Tiny targets JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-03-25 07:16 -0700
              Re: ...Tiny targets Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> - 2015-03-27 13:01 +0100
    Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth Gary Bergstrom <forthprgrmr@gmail.com> - 2015-03-18 06:45 -0700
      Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-03-18 08:57 -0700
        Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-03-18 20:09 +0100
      Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-03-18 08:59 -0700
      Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-03-20 21:47 -0700
        Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-03-21 02:30 -0700
          Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-03-21 17:52 -0700
            Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-03-22 01:27 -0700
              Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-03-22 13:15 -0700
              Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-03-22 13:47 -0700
              Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-03-22 18:39 -0400
              Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-03-22 16:32 -0700
              Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a(limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-26 06:35 +0000
                Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a(limping) Beginner's ANS Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-03-27 15:55 -0400
                  Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a(limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-03-28 03:36 -0400
            Re: What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a(limping) Beginner's ANS Forth "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-03-26 06:34 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#37650 — Re: ...Tiny targets

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> What is FLOSS?

Free/Libre/Open Source Software

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

#37651 — Re: ...Tiny targets

rickman wrote:
> What is FLOSS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software#FLOSS

To avoid the connection of "free" with "gratis", people try to use "libre" 
instead.

Orwell imagined that the party tells you "freedom is slavery".  However, 
reality brought us another form of that newspeak: "free" is now "gratis", 
and therefore, "free" is completely devaluated (very literally ;-), you 
can't even think of free as in freedom (lacking a word for it), and 
therefore, that meaning of "free" is truly a newspeak meaning: the 
thoughtcrime is not possible anymore.

Well, unless you borrow a word from another language.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/
net2o ID: kQusJzA;7*?t=uy@X}1GWr!+0qqp_Cn176t4(dQ*

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

#37654 — Re: ...Tiny targets

On 3/25/2015 3:42 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>> What is FLOSS?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software#FLOSS
>
> To avoid the connection of "free" with "gratis", people try to use "libre"
> instead.
>
> Orwell imagined that the party tells you "freedom is slavery".  However,
> reality brought us another form of that newspeak: "free" is now "gratis",
> and therefore, "free" is completely devaluated (very literally ;-), you
> can't even think of free as in freedom (lacking a word for it), and
> therefore, that meaning of "free" is truly a newspeak meaning: the
> thoughtcrime is not possible anymore.
>
> Well, unless you borrow a word from another language.

Ok, thanks.  I hadn't heard of that before.

-- 

Rick

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

#37668 — Re: ...Tiny targets

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 12:42:16 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote:
> rickman wrote:
> > What is FLOSS?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software#FLOSS
> 
> To avoid the connection of "free" with "gratis", people try to use "libre" 
> instead.
> 
> Orwell imagined that the party tells you "freedom is slavery".  However, 
> reality brought us another form of that newspeak: "free" is now "gratis", 
> and therefore, "free" is completely devaluated (very literally ;-), you 
> can't even think of free as in freedom (lacking a word for it), and 
> therefore, that meaning of "free" is truly a newspeak meaning: the 
> thoughtcrime is not possible anymore.
> 
> Well, unless you borrow a word from another language.

From the perspective of Red China, there is no difference between free as in libre and free as in gratis --- the West puts a lot of work into writing software, then gives them the source-code --- they most likely think that "free as in libre" is synonymous with: "free as in stupid."

We tend to take ourselves rather seriously, but a lot of people think that Americans are a joke --- clowns debating semantics while handing out suitcases full of cash to the audience --- Red China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Russia, etc..

Here is a funny joke:
Q: What is the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans?
A: The Democrats give foreign-aid to Jewish Russians (the oligarchs) and Republicans give foreign-aid to Russian Jews (Israel, which is over 50% Russian immigrants).

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

#37673 — Re: ...Tiny targets

on 26/03/2015 05:32:47, huge wrote:

> 
> Here is a funny joke:
> Q: What is the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans?
> A: The Democrats give foreign-aid to Jewish Russians (the oligarchs)
> and Re publicans give foreign-aid to Russian Jews (Israel, which is
> over 50% Russi an immigrants).
> 

Not even close. The figure is 20%. Even the whole of the Ashkenazi are
not the majority. And it's not even funny (unless by funny you mean odd).

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

#37675 — Re: ...Tiny targets

On 3/26/15 11:35, Alex McDonald wrote:

> Not even close. The figure is 20%. Even the whole of the Ashkenazi are
> not the majority. And it's not even funny (unless by funny you mean odd).

Stop confusing him with facts.

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

#37696 — Re: ...Tiny targets

On 3/26/2015 5:35 AM, Alex McDonald wrote:
> on 26/03/2015 05:32:47, huge wrote:
>
>>
>> Here is a funny joke:
>> Q: What is the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans?
>> A: The Democrats give foreign-aid to Jewish Russians (the oligarchs)
>> and Re publicans give foreign-aid to Russian Jews (Israel, which is
>> over 50% Russi an immigrants).
>>
>
> Not even close. The figure is 20%. Even the whole of the Ashkenazi are
> not the majority. And it's not even funny (unless by funny you mean odd).

Hugh is mostly annoying even if he is clearly talented with programming. 
  But this part of Hugh I find extremely scary.  Why does he have this 
obsession with the Jews?

-- 

Rick

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

#37676 — Re: ...Tiny targets

In article <a549ec30-de5e-487f-b096-28b0f7bddbe2@googlegroups.com>,
 <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 12:42:16 PM UTC-7, Bernd Paysan wrote:
>> rickman wrote:
>> > What is FLOSS?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software#FLOSS
>>
>> To avoid the connection of "free" with "gratis", people try to use "libre"
>> instead.
>>
>> Orwell imagined that the party tells you "freedom is slavery".  However,
>> reality brought us another form of that newspeak: "free" is now "gratis",
>> and therefore, "free" is completely devaluated (very literally ;-), you
>> can't even think of free as in freedom (lacking a word for it), and
>> therefore, that meaning of "free" is truly a newspeak meaning: the
>> thoughtcrime is not possible anymore.
>>
>> Well, unless you borrow a word from another language.
>
>From the perspective of Red China, there is no difference between free
>as in libre and free as in gratis --- the West puts a lot of work into
>writing software, then gives them the source-code --- they most likely
>think that "free as in libre" is synonymous with: "free as in stupid."

Think like this. The Chinese have as much people as the west.
Their copyright laws weight in as heavy as the US laws.
So you're parochial if you insists Chinese should follow your
copyright laws. They can use all the foreign software they can
lay there hands on, and stay within the law.

The only option the US have is to ban import of Chinese goods.
There is a problem there, the US have all their goods produced in China
to use cheap labour.

<SNIP>

>Here is a funny joke:
>Q: What is the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans?
>A: The Democrats give foreign-aid to Jewish Russians (the oligarchs) and
>Republicans give foreign-aid to Russian Jews (Israel, which is over 50%
>Russian immigrants).

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]

#37674 — Re: ...Tiny targets

Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>Orwell imagined that the party tells you "freedom is slavery".  However, 
>reality brought us another form of that newspeak: "free" is now "gratis", 
>and therefore, "free" is completely devaluated (very literally ;-), you 
>can't even think of free as in freedom (lacking a word for it), and 
>therefore, that meaning of "free" is truly a newspeak meaning: the 
>thoughtcrime is not possible anymore.

The funny thing is that Orwell did not think of the "gratis" meaning
of "free" when he used "free" as an example of Newspeak.

|To give a single example, the word free still existed in Newspeak, but
|could only be used in such statements as "The dog is free from lice"
|or "This field is free from weeds." It could not be used in its old
|sense of "politically free" or "intellectually free," since political
|and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were
|therefore of necessity nameless.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/

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

#37637 — Re: ...Tiny targets

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 7:43:59 AM UTC, Paul Rubin wrote:
> JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> writes:
> > Thanks for the Link. I agree with most of the points about the 430 -
> > except there is probably quite a basis out there now of these
> > launchpads and there are many Forths running on it now. Very small and
> > low cost - but not much IO. But the direct USB interface will make it
> > an additional cheap USB to serial as a first application?
> 
> Well, Matthias's post is about tethered Forths so resident ones like
> 4e4th don't count for the purpose.  It's possible Gary Bergstrom's
> tethered Forth is 430-specific so that weighs in favor of the 430.  But
> the hobby microcontroller movement mostly settled on the AVR, and their
> upward path seems to be toward ARM processors.  So the 430, while having
> its attractions, never caught on that well.  On the other hand, other
> than amForth, I don't think the AVR has gotten much Forth attention yet.
> 
> Not sure what you mean about direct USB interface--do you mean the FTDI
> chip on the Launchpad board?  The idea I think is to not rely on that.
> Do you mean on the Digispark?  There's no USB hardware, it's just
> software bit banging, quite a clever feat.  Even smaller than the Tiny85
> is the Tiny13 you mentioned in another post.

Yes Paul, this is exactly what I mean, if you can Forth this little board to be as well a USBtoTTL, I would buy one now - dual purpose. Use it as described first - 2nd purpose when I run out of resource.
I did not want to get the native Forth necessarily onto the little chips - I could for comparison - which you cannot. If I run out of space with the tethered approach I can use more ressource if I want it. In this Tethered exercise Flash and RAM usage or speed possibly count, it does not mean that you cannot have additional resources that you do not use yet. 
Regarding processors: if the 430 resources are there and paid for why not use them if they are good enough - my next one will be probably an ARM based board anyway. In Forth it should not really matter: does it do the job within the constraints given or allowed.
But this is just my opinion.

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

#37638 — Re: ...Tiny targets

On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 7:43:59 AM UTC, Paul Rubin wrote:
> JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> writes:
> > Thanks for the Link. I agree with most of the points about the 430 -
> > except there is probably quite a basis out there now of these
> > launchpads and there are many Forths running on it now. Very small and
> > low cost - but not much IO. But the direct USB interface will make it
> > an additional cheap USB to serial as a first application?
> 
> Well, Matthias's post is about tethered Forths so resident ones like
> 4e4th don't count for the purpose.  It's possible Gary Bergstrom's
> tethered Forth is 430-specific so that weighs in favor of the 430.  But
> the hobby microcontroller movement mostly settled on the AVR, and their
> upward path seems to be toward ARM processors.  So the 430, while having
> its attractions, never caught on that well.  On the other hand, other
> than amForth, I don't think the AVR has gotten much Forth attention yet.
> 
> Not sure what you mean about direct USB interface--do you mean the FTDI
> chip on the Launchpad board?  The idea I think is to not rely on that.
> Do you mean on the Digispark?  There's no USB hardware, it's just
> software bit banging, quite a clever feat.  Even smaller than the Tiny85
> is the Tiny13 you mentioned in another post.

If I understand it correctly, with the VFX LITE from MPE for MSP430 you have all three options: native, cross compiled, umbilical.

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

#37691 — Re: ...Tiny targets

> The FRAM launchpads are still interesting because of the unique feature
> of FRAM memory.

And they are supported by Mecrisp 2.0.0 - just have fun.
Matthias

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

#37392

I've hoped that Forth might move on from this.
Optimized compilers make the question of which and how many primitives a non-question.
You don't need DUP or >R or lots of others.  They are taken care of by the compiler.  Combined with a tether, you don't even need them for interpretation.

See VFX, SwiftForth, or others. Or do what I did 15 years ago and write a (very) simple peephole compiler.  You won't look back.

Gary

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

#37400

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 1:45:38 PM UTC, Gary Bergstrom wrote:
> I've hoped that Forth might move on from this.
> Optimized compilers make the question of which and how many primitives a non-question.
> You don't need DUP or >R or lots of others.  They are taken care of by the compiler.  Combined with a tether, you don't even need them for interpretation.
> 
> See VFX, SwiftForth, or others. Or do what I did 15 years ago and write a (very) simple peephole compiler.  You won't look back.
> 
> Gary

Wow, I am impressed, so much good information.
This project is NOT to look back, but to look forward to understanding Forth.
There might be thousands who do not know where to start, for me it is an interesting spare time project.

Just to make a strong statement:
Nobody on CLF had any idea of Forth before they started. Nearly all of you are now far beyond what I am doing here. I am at the other end - starting to crawl.
And the best way for me anyway is to write it down, play with it
- If I have to explain it to myself at least it has to make sense.

This is how The Forth Tutorial stated - an eBook now and I still look at it when needed.
But if there is no application - you cannot test if you have understood. I am a HW person.
This is how the MSP430 project started - hardware is ready now, and in parallel Michael Kalus did a wonderful job programming Forth code for me. Take away many of the words, prepare routines that do the hard stuff inside the CPU - and MMT was born, uses about 80 words.
There was the Minimal Word comparison we did for another reason, the table mentioned above, and as well I did a common word table comparison of different Forth I looked at, about 100 words are common.

Last year I translated in another project a manual from German to English and published it as an eBook - Learning Programming - a very simple processor simulated on a Holtek processor. Michael Kalus did a wonderful job converting it to Forth running on the MSP430, ready for testing now.
The original system does not have a PC connection
 - just using 3 push button switches, 5 Leds to program and run.
This same functionality is now in an MSP430  - That's it.
And now with the Forthified version you can connect it to a PC and learn debugging your code, see what happens in all of the registers.

As this project is running just a 4 bit processor, the obvious question was:
Can I program this as well in HexForth rather than having Hex Instructions, just having 16 Forth instructions.
And this is where this thread started.

So neither speed nor efficiency are relevant - the question is: can it be done and can I write useful programs with the resulting word set.
Stephen Pelc gave me on Monday an interpreted BEGIN UNTIL - as compiling should be avoided as well ( 2 Hex Words of the 16 already gone ... ).
This will be running with the whole of 4e4th still on the chip. But only used in the background.
Is it useful? Definitely for me and for for educational purposes - all you need to know on one page, including examples. And it is fun to do for me.

And yes, this basic processor  might actually then wander off into an FPGA, written in Verilog probably or in VHDL.

Independant of the Forth activities we are just in the process of implementing the CDP1802 processor into FPGA. Let's see then how it competes with other and more modern open cores. And it will obviously run Forth. Here again: comment out 90%, this time in Verilog  and the uForth processor is probably there.
And until then I might have discovered that somebody has done a VeriForth or ForthDL already hidden somwhere in an archive 
- this will start another fun project.

So back to the beginning: 
There is an MPE MSP430LITE or a 4e4th compiler on an MSP430:
 
Which 16 words do I need to do something useful LFprth for limping Forth 
- existing words or newly defined. But max 16.
ANS was just a question, but never a requirement.

All in 4 bits. Numbers/addresses in HEX and can use 2 of them.
Have it as a little contest?
Who can suggest a  set of 16 that are agreed here to enter
Which set works the fastest on the 430?

And before the question comes up : 
All parts of this will probably be moved to the ARM as well - for the time being an LP1114, as this is the only one I know that is available in a DIL package. And educational means non-SMD for me.
The Olimex board is programmed already with VFX 
- the only limit is spare time.

But any help to port the MMT Michael Kalus wrote to the ARM core and adapting the prepared functions like AD handling, PWM, IO would be highly appreciated and obviously included in all of the promotion we do.
Many people have helped until now to get this project to where it is - they must have seen a value including
TI sent us 100 chips                     FOC
    and 4 Launchpads                     FOC
Eurotech did 200 of the little boards    FOC
Wuerth sent 30 switches and LEDs         FOC

And we will have our little robot soon   Forth S. Walker 
     - 4 servos and some sticky tape, an MSP430 and a battery.

This got a lot longer that I had planned - but I will need it for other purposes anyway and you might be interested to know the context.

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

#37407

JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> writes:
> As this project is running just a 4 bit processor, the obvious
> question was: Can I program this as well in HexForth rather than
> having Hex Instructions, just having 16 Forth instructions.  And
> this is where this thread started.
>
> So neither speed nor efficiency are relevant - the question is: can
> it be done and can I write useful programs with the resulting word
> set.

Yes, it can be done.

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

#37401

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 1:45:38 PM UTC, Gary Bergstrom wrote:
> I've hoped that Forth might move on from this.
> Optimized compilers make the question of which and how many primitives a non-question.
> You don't need DUP or >R or lots of others.  They are taken care of by the compiler.  Combined with a tether, you don't even need them for interpretation.
> 
> See VFX, SwiftForth, or others. Or do what I did 15 years ago and write a (very) simple peephole compiler.  You won't look back.
> 
> Gary

Gary, you actually triggered a more extensive answer; as you can see 2 completely different subjects. This is a fun project.

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

#37500

On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 6:45:38 AM UTC-7, Gary Bergstrom wrote:
> I've hoped that Forth might move on from this.
> Optimized compilers make the question of which and how many primitives a non-question.
> You don't need DUP or >R or lots of others.  They are taken care of by the compiler.  Combined with a tether, you don't even need them for interpretation.
> 
> See VFX, SwiftForth, or others. Or do what I did 15 years ago and write a (very) simple peephole compiler.  You won't look back.
> 
> Gary

This is true --- the whole discussion is anachronistic --- optimizing compilers make this a non-question.

This is also why I think that Bernd's B16 (and the F3C, etc.) are a bad idea --- they assume a non-optimizing compiler, so they are doomed to be slow and bloaty from day one and forever after --- this was well known 20 years ago, which is why this design was not used in the MiniForth (and why the MiniForth was used in a commercial product, rather than just be a hobby project).

You don't even need an optimizing compiler --- my MFX wasn't optimizing --- all that is necessary is for somebody to write a lot of primitives in assembly-language and/or to write meta-compiling code that generates a lot of primitives (I did both in the MFX).

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

#37503

On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 4:47:19 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 6:45:38 AM UTC-7, Gary Bergstrom wrote:
> > I've hoped that Forth might move on from this.
> > Optimized compilers make the question of which and how many primitives a non-question.
> > You don't need DUP or >R or lots of others.  They are taken care of by the compiler.  Combined with a tether, you don't even need them for interpretation.
> > 
> > See VFX, SwiftForth, or others. Or do what I did 15 years ago and write a (very) simple peephole compiler.  You won't look back.
> > 
> > Gary


> 
> This is true --- the whole discussion is anachronistic --- optimizing compilers make this a non-question.
> 
> This is also why I think that Bernd's B16 (and the F3C, etc.) are a bad idea --- they assume a non-optimizing compiler, so they are doomed to be slow and bloaty from day one and forever after --- this was well known 20 years ago, which is why this design was not used in the MiniForth (and why the MiniForth was used in a commercial product, rather than just be a hobby project).
> 
> You don't even need an optimizing compiler --- my MFX wasn't optimizing --- all that is necessary is for somebody to write a lot of primitives in assembly-language and/or to write meta-compiling code that generates a lot of primitives (I did both in the MFX).

So which small core then instead - it seems you know better.
Or no small core at all?

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

#37528

On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 2:30:33 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 4:47:19 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 6:45:38 AM UTC-7, Gary Bergstrom wrote:
> > > I've hoped that Forth might move on from this.
> > > Optimized compilers make the question of which and how many primitives a non-question.
> > > You don't need DUP or >R or lots of others.  They are taken care of by the compiler.  Combined with a tether, you don't even need them for interpretation.
> > > 
> > > See VFX, SwiftForth, or others. Or do what I did 15 years ago and write a (very) simple peephole compiler.  You won't look back.
> > > 
> > > Gary
> 
> 
> > 
> > This is true --- the whole discussion is anachronistic --- optimizing compilers make this a non-question.
> > 
> > This is also why I think that Bernd's B16 (and the F3C, etc.) are a bad idea --- they assume a non-optimizing compiler, so they are doomed to be slow and bloaty from day one and forever after --- this was well known 20 years ago, which is why this design was not used in the MiniForth (and why the MiniForth was used in a commercial product, rather than just be a hobby project).
> > 
> > You don't even need an optimizing compiler --- my MFX wasn't optimizing --- all that is necessary is for somebody to write a lot of primitives in assembly-language and/or to write meta-compiling code that generates a lot of primitives (I did both in the MFX).
> 
> So which small core then instead - it seems you know better.
> Or no small core at all?

Your topic heading said: "Beginner's ANS-Forth." Apparently we are discussing education, which isn't what I was talking about above (I was talking about using Forth for micro-controllers). Actually, I don't really care all that much about education, as nobody will volunteer to learn Forth if they don't see the experts making money using Forth in micro-controllers and they don't have an expectation that they will do the same --- other than Gavino, nobody's goal is to have fun, and Gavino is not the most motivated guy around because there are easier ways to have fun, so the fun-seeker gets distracted from Forth pretty quickly (you can't learn Forth if you have a two minute attention-span).

Since we are discussing education though, I will put in my two-cents worth.

The beginner at learning Forth doesn't really care how many primitives there are, because that is something that the compiler-writer has to deal with, not the user. So, the whole thread has diverged into irrelevance by discussing how many primitives are needed, and how some apparently primitive words can actually be implemented in terms of other primitives, although usually at a great cost in efficiency --- this is only an issue for people like Bernd Payson with his B16 that has only 32 primitives, and require the designer to decide which will be anointed with a hardware implementation --- all nonsense anyway, for both beginner and expert, as such a processor will never be anything except a toy.

The beginner at learning Forth does benefit from having a small "word set" (your term) of high-level words, because that is what he is dealing with. For example, in my language I get rid of a lot of cruft such as DO loops (done better with BEGIN and locals) and TO (done better with !), and >R (done better with locals). Although I have some new features (lambda functions), I get rid of a lot of old features, so my language comes out smaller than ANS-Forth, and presumably easier to learn (DO loops are very difficult for beginners to grasp, especially if >R is also available as it clashes). I don't actually know "how many words" I have, as the language design is still in flux --- it is somewhat of a meaningless statistic anyway, as it is more important to keep the understandable words and get rid of the confusing words, than to worry about counting how many words there are.

The beginner at learning Forth mostly benefits from having code libraries available so he doesn't have to write everything from scratch. This is the point that I have made repeatedly, and which Elizabeth Rather is dead set against. The beginner needs to succeed at writing programs in order to learn anything and to be motivated to continue. All programs work with data, and that data has to be held in data-structures --- so the beginner (expert too), is hugely benefited from having general-purpose data-structures available that he can use. If the beginner is forced to write custom data-structures, he will get bogged down, and he will quit without having ever completed a single program --- this is primarily why nobody is learning Forth (all Forth programmers are over 40 years old, and there is no next generation) --- nobody really wants to spend time implementing self-balancing binary trees or hash tables or any other kinds of data-structures, as this is both difficult and boring, and it is really more a job for mathematicians than programmers (binary trees were studied as far back as the 19th century, at a time when being an expert on electricity primarily involved scuffing your boots on the rug and then zapping a cat in the nose with static-discharge).

I think that people who worry about the size of the word-set, are doomed to failure anyway. They believe that learning the language involves reading a reference manual and learning what each word does, and so they suppose that the fewer words they have to learn and the thinner the manual, the sooner they will finish. They are doomed! This is not how programming languages are learned! To learn how to program in a language, it is necessary to write programs in that language. It is best to start writing a program on day one, before you have learned hardly any of the words in the language. As you go, you will find that you need words to do something in your program, so you scan through the reference manual until you find something likely, and you use it. You get your program to work, and then you are happy because you have succeeded. Your program may be badly written though, so you rewrite it using your new knowledge and you do a better job. Write a lot of programs, and write increasingly difficult programs, and pretty soon it will become easy. Never "study" the language though --- this is boring and you will fall asleep --- even if you drink coffee to stay awake, you won't learn anything, and you won't be any closer to being capable of writing a program in the language than you were before you began studying.

P.S. I may provide >R because it is useful when you have a variable number of parameters, but will discourage its use in general, and will encourage the use of locals --- I could describe >R as being expert-level and tell beginners to ignore it.

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

#37535

On Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 12:52:52 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 2:30:33 AM UTC-7, JUERGEN wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 21, 2015 at 4:47:19 AM UTC, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 6:45:38 AM UTC-7, Gary Bergstrom wrote:
> > > > I've hoped that Forth might move on from this.
> > > > Optimized compilers make the question of which and how many primitives a non-question.
> > > > You don't need DUP or >R or lots of others.  They are taken care of by the compiler.  Combined with a tether, you don't even need them for interpretation.
> > > > 
> > > > See VFX, SwiftForth, or others. Or do what I did 15 years ago and write a (very) simple peephole compiler.  You won't look back.
> > > > 
> > > > Gary
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > This is true --- the whole discussion is anachronistic --- optimizing compilers make this a non-question.
> > > 
> > > This is also why I think that Bernd's B16 (and the F3C, etc.) are a bad idea --- they assume a non-optimizing compiler, so they are doomed to be slow and bloaty from day one and forever after --- this was well known 20 years ago, which is why this design was not used in the MiniForth (and why the MiniForth was used in a commercial product, rather than just be a hobby project).
> > > 
> > > You don't even need an optimizing compiler --- my MFX wasn't optimizing --- all that is necessary is for somebody to write a lot of primitives in assembly-language and/or to write meta-compiling code that generates a lot of primitives (I did both in the MFX).
> > 
> > So which small core then instead - it seems you know better.
> > Or no small core at all?
> 
> Your topic heading said: "Beginner's ANS-Forth." Apparently we are discussing education, which isn't what I was talking about above (I was talking about using Forth for micro-controllers). Actually, I don't really care all that much about education, as nobody will volunteer to learn Forth if they don't see the experts making money using Forth in micro-controllers and they don't have an expectation that they will do the same --- other than Gavino, nobody's goal is to have fun, and Gavino is not the most motivated guy around because there are easier ways to have fun, so the fun-seeker gets distracted from Forth pretty quickly (you can't learn Forth if you have a two minute attention-span).
> 
> Since we are discussing education though, I will put in my two-cents worth.
> 
> The beginner at learning Forth doesn't really care how many primitives there are, because that is something that the compiler-writer has to deal with, not the user. So, the whole thread has diverged into irrelevance by discussing how many primitives are needed, and how some apparently primitive words can actually be implemented in terms of other primitives, although usually at a great cost in efficiency --- this is only an issue for people like Bernd Payson with his B16 that has only 32 primitives, and require the designer to decide which will be anointed with a hardware implementation --- all nonsense anyway, for both beginner and expert, as such a processor will never be anything except a toy.
> 
> The beginner at learning Forth does benefit from having a small "word set" (your term) of high-level words, because that is what he is dealing with. For example, in my language I get rid of a lot of cruft such as DO loops (done better with BEGIN and locals) and TO (done better with !), and >R (done better with locals). Although I have some new features (lambda functions), I get rid of a lot of old features, so my language comes out smaller than ANS-Forth, and presumably easier to learn (DO loops are very difficult for beginners to grasp, especially if >R is also available as it clashes). I don't actually know "how many words" I have, as the language design is still in flux --- it is somewhat of a meaningless statistic anyway, as it is more important to keep the understandable words and get rid of the confusing words, than to worry about counting how many words there are.
> 
> The beginner at learning Forth mostly benefits from having code libraries available so he doesn't have to write everything from scratch. This is the point that I have made repeatedly, and which Elizabeth Rather is dead set against. The beginner needs to succeed at writing programs in order to learn anything and to be motivated to continue. All programs work with data, and that data has to be held in data-structures --- so the beginner (expert too), is hugely benefited from having general-purpose data-structures available that he can use. If the beginner is forced to write custom data-structures, he will get bogged down, and he will quit without having ever completed a single program --- this is primarily why nobody is learning Forth (all Forth programmers are over 40 years old, and there is no next generation) --- nobody really wants to spend time implementing self-balancing binary trees or hash tables or any other kinds of data-structures, as this is both difficult and boring, and it is really more a job for mathematicians than programmers (binary trees were studied as far back as the 19th century, at a time when being an expert on electricity primarily involved scuffing your boots on the rug and then zapping a cat in the nose with static-discharge).
> 
> I think that people who worry about the size of the word-set, are doomed to failure anyway. They believe that learning the language involves reading a reference manual and learning what each word does, and so they suppose that the fewer words they have to learn and the thinner the manual, the sooner they will finish. They are doomed! This is not how programming languages are learned! To learn how to program in a language, it is necessary to write programs in that language. It is best to start writing a program on day one, before you have learned hardly any of the words in the language. As you go, you will find that you need words to do something in your program, so you scan through the reference manual until you find something likely, and you use it. You get your program to work, and then you are happy because you have succeeded. Your program may be badly written though, so you rewrite it using your new knowledge and you do a better job. Write a lot of programs, and write increasingly difficult programs, and pretty soon it will become easy. Never "study" the language though --- this is boring and you will fall asleep --- even if you drink coffee to stay awake, you won't learn anything, and you won't be any closer to being capable of writing a program in the language than you were before you began studying.
> 
> P.S. I may provide >R because it is useful when you have a variable number of parameters, but will discourage its use in general, and will encourage the use of locals --- I could describe >R as being expert-level and tell beginners to ignore it.

A lot of wasted time here - for you to write and for all of us to read.

What is the minimum Word set you could live with to have a (limping) Beginner's ANS Forth 
- this was the question. 

Do you have anything to contribute - otherwise stay out of my thread. 
I will do what I think necessary anyway and it is a lot of fun 
- except for answering postings like this.

If you know so well how and why it does not work - by definition you know the inverse, how it works ....

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web