Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #39639 > unrolled thread
| Started by | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-06-08 17:34 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-06-27 14:08 +1000 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 27 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
RfD: 1 chars = 1 anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-08 17:34 +0000
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-08 10:59 -0700
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-08 19:57 +0100
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-08 16:35 -0700
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-09 06:18 +0000
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-09 23:35 +0200
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-09 23:49 +0100
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-10 01:41 +0200
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-10 02:03 +0100
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-10 12:22 +0000
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-11 14:50 +0100
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-10 14:46 +0200
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-09 07:09 +0000
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2015-06-09 01:52 -0700
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-09 23:29 +0200
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> - 2015-06-09 12:06 +0200
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-09 03:40 -0700
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> - 2015-06-09 12:45 +0200
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-09 07:17 -0400
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> - 2015-06-09 14:30 +0200
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-06-09 12:50 -0800
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-06-21 17:14 +1000
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-06-20 21:46 -1000
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-06-23 15:05 +1000
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-06-22 19:42 -1000
Re: RfD: 1 chars = 1 "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-06-27 14:08 +1000
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Matthias Koch <matthias.koch@hot.uni-hannover.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-09 14:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ml6m7o$9bs$1@newsserver.rrzn.uni-hannover.de> |
| In reply to | #39661 |
rickman schrieb: > On 6/9/2015 6:45 AM, Matthias Koch wrote: >>> I'm not aware of any. Like you, the last I heard/used was the TMS34010 >>> and TMS34020 back in ~93/94. >> >> Thank you for the reply ! So many interesting ideas in instruction set >> design :-) > > I believe the CM3 and/or CM4 have bit manipulation instructions, but I > believe that is not what you mean. It's been a while since I read about > them, but I seem to recall that they may map bits to individual addresses. Yes, M3/M4 have "bit-banding", but this is rather a hack to allow atomic bit manipulation of certain memory locations, far away from a bit-addressable CPU core.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-09 12:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <-uKdnSpMkacTzOrInZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #39654 |
On 6/9/15 2:40 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 11:06:04 UTC+1, Matthias Koch wrote: >>> What about nibble-addressed/bit-addressed machines? >>> >>> No implementations of standard Forth on such machines are known to me; >>> probably the benefits of standard systems do not outweigh the costs on >>> such restricted machines. Such machines are becoming rarer over time, >>> so if nobody has created such a system yet, it is unlikely to happen >>> in the future. >> >> May I ask if there currently still is a bit-addressed microcontroller out in the wild and in production to play with ? I dived into this topic and only found the TMS34010 vintage graphics processor. >> >> Matthias > > I'm not aware of any. Like you, the last I heard/used was the TMS34010 > and TMS34020 back in ~93/94. > One member of the Forth94 TC had a Forth on a nibble-addressed machine, and there was another with 6-bit bytes. Later, some of Chuck's machines had cell-sized chars. 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 | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-21 17:14 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mm5o8e$4vv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #39668 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 6/9/15 2:40 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > > On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 11:06:04 UTC+1, Matthias Koch wrote: > >>> What about nibble-addressed/bit-addressed machines? > >>> > >>> No implementations of standard Forth on such machines are known to me; > >>> probably the benefits of standard systems do not outweigh the costs on > >>> such restricted machines. Such machines are becoming rarer over time, > >>> so if nobody has created such a system yet, it is unlikely to happen > >>> in the future. > >> > >> May I ask if there currently still is a bit-addressed microcontroller out in the > >> wild and in production to play with ? I dived into this topic and only found the > >> TMS34010 vintage graphics processor. > >> > >> Matthias > > > > I'm not aware of any. Like you, the last I heard/used was the TMS34010 > > and TMS34020 back in ~93/94. > > > > One member of the Forth94 TC had a Forth on a nibble-addressed machine, > and there was another with 6-bit bytes. Later, some of Chuck's machines > had cell-sized chars. Supporting obsolete or little-used technology can end up doing more harm than good. Forth-94 took a 'norm' like 2's complement and turned it into something that's 'not portable'. The result has been users avoid 2's complement code at the expense of efficiency.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-20 21:46 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <GNOdnTFd7cZQ9hvInZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #39920 |
On 6/20/15 9:14 PM, HAA wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 6/9/15 2:40 AM, Mark Wills wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 9 June 2015 11:06:04 UTC+1, Matthias Koch wrote: >>>>> What about nibble-addressed/bit-addressed machines? >>>>> >>>>> No implementations of standard Forth on such machines are known to me; >>>>> probably the benefits of standard systems do not outweigh the costs on >>>>> such restricted machines. Such machines are becoming rarer over time, >>>>> so if nobody has created such a system yet, it is unlikely to happen >>>>> in the future. >>>> >>>> May I ask if there currently still is a bit-addressed microcontroller out in the >>>> wild and in production to play with ? I dived into this topic and only found the >>>> TMS34010 vintage graphics processor. >>>> >>>> Matthias >>> >>> I'm not aware of any. Like you, the last I heard/used was the TMS34010 >>> and TMS34020 back in ~93/94. >>> >> >> One member of the Forth94 TC had a Forth on a nibble-addressed machine, >> and there was another with 6-bit bytes. Later, some of Chuck's machines >> had cell-sized chars. > > Supporting obsolete or little-used technology can end up doing more harm than > good. Forth-94 took a 'norm' like 2's complement and turned it into something > that's 'not portable'. The result has been users avoid 2's complement code at > the expense of efficiency. Smart ones just declare a dependency on 2's complement and forge ahead. Virtually every actual program has far more serious dependencies: on a processor, host OS, other hardware, etc. 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 | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-23 15:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mmapf8$350$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #39921 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 6/20/15 9:14 PM, HAA wrote: > > ... > > Supporting obsolete or little-used technology can end up doing more harm than > > good. Forth-94 took a 'norm' like 2's complement and turned it into something > > that's 'not portable'. The result has been users avoid 2's complement code at > > the expense of efficiency. > > Smart ones just declare a dependency on 2's complement and forge ahead. > Virtually every actual program has far more serious dependencies: on a > processor, host OS, other hardware, etc. If portability is a myth, why declare anything? Do you declare Forth-94 dependencies such as 2's complement in your programs? If not, why not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-22 19:42 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <MMKdnZ7FBOtDbBXInZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #39979 |
On 6/22/15 7:05 PM, HAA wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 6/20/15 9:14 PM, HAA wrote: >>> ... >>> Supporting obsolete or little-used technology can end up doing more harm than >>> good. Forth-94 took a 'norm' like 2's complement and turned it into something >>> that's 'not portable'. The result has been users avoid 2's complement code at >>> the expense of efficiency. >> >> Smart ones just declare a dependency on 2's complement and forge ahead. >> Virtually every actual program has far more serious dependencies: on a >> processor, host OS, other hardware, etc. > > If portability is a myth, why declare anything? Do you declare Forth-94 > dependencies such as 2's complement in your programs? If not, why not. Portability isn't a myth, it's a continuum. A program can be more portable, or less. To a great extent, it's up to the programmer to make decisions in each case, depending on many factors: what things need to be optimized even at a cost in portability; how likely it is that you will want to run this program on different Forth systems or host platforms, etc. In any case, it's a way to documenting specifically what things you need to be conscious of when moving to a different platform, and that's of considerable value. And, yes, I would certainly list 2's complement, along with the host CPU, OS if any, hardware dependencies, cell size, and probably a whole list of other things. 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 | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-27 14:08 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mml7kg$fmd$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #39980 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 6/22/15 7:05 PM, HAA wrote: > > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> On 6/20/15 9:14 PM, HAA wrote: > >>> ... > >>> Supporting obsolete or little-used technology can end up doing more harm than > >>> good. Forth-94 took a 'norm' like 2's complement and turned it into something > >>> that's 'not portable'. The result has been users avoid 2's complement code at > >>> the expense of efficiency. > >> > >> Smart ones just declare a dependency on 2's complement and forge ahead. > >> Virtually every actual program has far more serious dependencies: on a > >> processor, host OS, other hardware, etc. > > > > If portability is a myth, why declare anything? Do you declare Forth-94 > > dependencies such as 2's complement in your programs? If not, why not. > > Portability isn't a myth, it's a continuum. A program can be more > portable, or less. > ... > And, yes, I would certainly list 2's complement, along with the host > CPU, OS if any, hardware dependencies, cell size, and probably a whole > list of other things. This isn't need. It's a compliance list. Forth-94 demonstrated to the world it can be bloated, pedantic and bureaucratic as any other. Congratulations. Unfortunately it misses the point. Forth is about what programmers don't need.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web