Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #15795 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-09-28 07:16 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-10-27 08:54 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 97 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 07:16 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 10:44 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 10:45 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-09-28 11:42 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Jecel <jecel@merlintec.com> - 2012-09-28 11:39 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-28 11:44 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-09-29 14:55 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-29 12:13 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-29 23:13 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-29 17:30 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-29 17:59 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-09-30 13:50 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-02 23:53 +1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-10-03 19:10 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-03 07:41 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-03 18:06 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-03 20:22 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-04 08:39 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-04 07:51 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-04 14:05 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-04 09:26 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-04 19:23 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-05 00:41 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-05 15:43 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. vandys@vsta.org - 2012-10-05 21:14 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-07 17:58 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-04 13:40 +1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-03 21:34 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-10-04 09:49 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-10-10 00:10 +1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-09 16:42 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 14:01 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 11:43 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-09 09:02 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 15:34 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-09 09:53 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 16:06 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-09 17:00 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-10 20:54 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-11 19:26 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 23:52 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-10-13 07:56 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 15:06 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 01:29 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 15:31 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 14:14 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-09 21:37 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 15:26 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 02:21 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-09 19:40 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-04 17:07 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-09-29 22:12 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-29 18:38 -1000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-29 23:38 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Jecel <jecel@merlintec.com> - 2012-09-30 11:47 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-02 00:19 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-02 16:06 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-05 14:50 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-06 03:14 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-30 16:34 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-01 02:31 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-01 01:27 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-01 16:57 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-02 16:51 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-03 02:48 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-04 17:47 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-05 00:39 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-06 18:47 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-10-02 19:23 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-09-30 17:05 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cmm> - 2012-10-01 02:26 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-05 19:45 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-04 13:22 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-10-06 02:37 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 01:38 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 20:43 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 20:56 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 16:00 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 21:05 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 16:40 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-08 23:16 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 00:19 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 18:43 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2012-10-09 09:59 +0000
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Chris Hinsley <chris.hinsley@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 18:46 +0100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) marko <marko@marko.marko> - 2012-10-10 07:29 +1100
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 17:11 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 01:11 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-09 20:46 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-10-10 14:48 +0200
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 13:35 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 00:01 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2012-10-13 20:51 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-10-14 17:36 -0400
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) gavino_himself <visploveslisp@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 13:34 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> - 2012-10-26 13:35 -0700
Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. (link supplied) "B.Person" <bruce.person@gmail.com> - 2012-10-27 08:54 -0700
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-04 09:26 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <yNudnbnGyfVWf_DNnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #15920 |
On 10/4/12 8:05 AM, rickman wrote: > On 10/4/2012 1:51 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 10/4/12 2:39 AM, rickman wrote: >>> On 10/3/2012 2:06 PM, vandys@vsta.org wrote: >>>>> Forth seems to be a good example of a marketing failure that isn't a >>>>> technical failure. It's a simple, flexible tool that just doesn't get >>>>> any >>>>> respect! >>>> >>>> It's a powerful macro assembler for a stack based machine language. >>>> The problem is that it can take your $0.23 problem and do it for >>>> $0.17-- >>>> a 25% savings! But everybody has pockets stuffed full of $20 bills, >>>> so nobody cares. I think Chuck Moore was smart to head towards where >>>> the pennies still matter. >>> >>> And exactly where would that be? >> >> In embedded devices that will be used in enormous volumes, such that >> tiny savings in unit costs are multiplied by volume to the extent that >> it's worth extra development costs to achieve them, and in applications >> where good power management can vastly extend the usefulness (and value) >> of a device. > > I asked the question not because I don't understand the concept, but > because I don't see how a $15 CPU chip which requires some $10+ of > supporting chips is a viable contender in the "$0.23" arena. I realize > that number is just a rhetorical figure, but with the current selling > price of the GA144, I don't see it being suited to high volume markets > except perhaps an extremely small niche. I still am asking the question, > > Exactly where would that be? > > Rick GA's price is high because their volumes right now are low. Every new chip has this problem until they get enough design wins, unless the mfr is so large they can subsidize the early market stages. 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 | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-04 19:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <k4l5ps$p1u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15923 |
On 10/4/2012 3:26 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 10/4/12 8:05 AM, rickman wrote: >> On 10/4/2012 1:51 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>> On 10/4/12 2:39 AM, rickman wrote: >>>> On 10/3/2012 2:06 PM, vandys@vsta.org wrote: >>>>>> Forth seems to be a good example of a marketing failure that isn't a >>>>>> technical failure. It's a simple, flexible tool that just doesn't get >>>>>> any >>>>>> respect! >>>>> >>>>> It's a powerful macro assembler for a stack based machine language. >>>>> The problem is that it can take your $0.23 problem and do it for >>>>> $0.17-- >>>>> a 25% savings! But everybody has pockets stuffed full of $20 bills, >>>>> so nobody cares. I think Chuck Moore was smart to head towards where >>>>> the pennies still matter. >>>> >>>> And exactly where would that be? >>> >>> In embedded devices that will be used in enormous volumes, such that >>> tiny savings in unit costs are multiplied by volume to the extent that >>> it's worth extra development costs to achieve them, and in applications >>> where good power management can vastly extend the usefulness (and value) >>> of a device. >> >> I asked the question not because I don't understand the concept, but >> because I don't see how a $15 CPU chip which requires some $10+ of >> supporting chips is a viable contender in the "$0.23" arena. I realize >> that number is just a rhetorical figure, but with the current selling >> price of the GA144, I don't see it being suited to high volume markets >> except perhaps an extremely small niche. I still am asking the question, >> >> Exactly where would that be? >> >> Rick > > GA's price is high because their volumes right now are low. Every new > chip has this problem until they get enough design wins, unless the mfr > is so large they can subsidize the early market stages. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth Ok, then let's talk about a $5 chip that uses $10 worth of support chips to do anything meaningful. The fact remains that this is not an inexpensive chip. I has some unique capabilities, but it also was designed without a plan on how to use those capabilities and without a market to sell into and without consideration of how it might be used in a real world design. I'm really not trying to bash it, I would still like to use it in a design. But I can only think of one application area for it, a multi-channel/multi-mode, hand held, software defined digital receiver. Even then I'm not familiar enough with the market space to know how usable it would be there. What other apps are there for this device? Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vandys@vsta.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-05 00:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <ad6olnFfk3sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15920 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > ... with the current selling > price of the GA144, I don't see it being suited to high volume markets > except perhaps an extremely small niche. I'm certainly not arguing the case for the current chip. But the tiny dab of silicon implied by their architecture would be almost in the noise for any current production CPU chip; their technology is clearly compatible with low cost and low power. The real question seems to be whether its new software model can gain traction in any actual product. -- Andy Valencia Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/ To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-05 15:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <k4nd99$uh9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15934 |
On 10/4/2012 8:41 PM, vandys@vsta.org wrote: > rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> ... with the current selling >> price of the GA144, I don't see it being suited to high volume markets >> except perhaps an extremely small niche. > > I'm certainly not arguing the case for the current chip. But the tiny dab of > silicon implied by their architecture would be almost in the noise for any > current production CPU chip; their technology is clearly compatible with low > cost and low power. The real question seems to be whether its new software > model can gain traction in any actual product. If you think their chip is suitable for low cost applications, you have not looked at what it takes to build a board using this device. There are any number of MCUs and FPGAs available that have looked at the full system which they would be used in and incorporated as many components internally as possible. The GA144 seems to have been designed thinking that the system should be adapted to making the GA144 as simple as possible. As I said in my other posts, this part requires some $10 or more of supporting components for a real design. Compare that to a MCU under $4 that has nearly everything needed on one chip. The irony is that it would be so easy to add capability that would make this a much better device. I don't know why they don't think it is useful or needed. The software issues are on top of the hardware issues and don't really help things much. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vandys@vsta.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-05 21:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <ad90tfF1bkeU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #15954 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > If you think their chip is suitable for low cost applications, you have > not looked at what it takes to build a board using this device. That isn't what I said. Let me quote my first sentence again: >> I'm certainly not arguing the case for the current chip. You continue: > The irony is that it would be so easy to add capability that would make > this a much better device. I don't know why they don't think it is > useful or needed. I understand that you're frustrated because what they have and what you want are so far apart. -- Andy Valencia Home page: http://www.vsta.org/andy/ To contact me: http://www.vsta.org/contact/andy.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-07 17:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <k4stue$jht$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15956 |
On 10/5/2012 5:14 PM, vandys@vsta.org wrote: > rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> If you think their chip is suitable for low cost applications, you have >> not looked at what it takes to build a board using this device. > > That isn't what I said. Let me quote my first sentence again: > >>> I'm certainly not arguing the case for the current chip. > > You continue: > >> The irony is that it would be so easy to add capability that would make >> this a much better device. I don't know why they don't think it is >> useful or needed. > > I understand that you're frustrated because what they have and what you want > are so far apart. I am frustrated because they don't want to support my method of working with their chip which is to understand the timing to the same level of detail that is supported with FPGAs. As to my reply to your post, I am responding to the statement, "their technology is clearly compatible with low cost and low power". The die size only determines the cost of their silicon. This is not the same as their total product cost and is not at all related to the cost of using the device in a product. Like I said before, there may be some areas where the chip is useful and competitive. But the general, low cost application area is not where this chip can compete. It is not low cost unless you are comparing it to the higher end devices which it otherwise does not compete against. In other words, it is not a "system" device. It is a processing unit which requires much supporting circuitry. That does not result in a low cost design. As to the claim of low power, I can't say how well this device can compete on power. The only power the matters is the system power of the end design. Until we seem some system designs we won't know if the GA144 will result in a low power system. I may return to exploring the oscilloscope design. Some potential work fell through and I still have time on my hands. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-04 13:40 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <k4j0c2$m24$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15883 |
Fritz Wuehler wrote: > "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> wrote: > > > Anonymous wrote: > > > ... > > > If that isn't a good description of Forth I don't know what is! > > > > Which - a technical or marketing failure? :) > > Forth seems to be a good example of a marketing failure that isn't a > technical failure. It's a simple, flexible tool that just doesn't get any > respect! > > > Paul's observation applies equally to Forth: > > > > "It also helps to have concrete evidence that what you're doing > > fills a need, instead of being a solution looking for a problem." > > Aside from talking about it, which is what this newsgroup is and should be > about, there are people using Forth or Elizabeth and Stephen probably > couldn't afford their internet connections and websites. Without any > additional context from your quote, I don't see Forth as a solution looking > for a problem. There are many niche tools and domain specific languages that > are not popular or widely known, yet they serve a purpose and are in active > use. Yes but who can make a living from them? For each success claimed by a niche language, there will be hundreds written using mainstream languages and tools. If one wants to make a living from programming one must go to where the work is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-03 21:34 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <xPadne1mVoa8ofDNnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #15904 |
On 10/3/12 5:40 PM, Ed wrote: ... >> Aside from talking about it, which is what this newsgroup is and should be >> about, there are people using Forth or Elizabeth and Stephen probably >> couldn't afford their internet connections and websites. Without any >> additional context from your quote, I don't see Forth as a solution looking >> for a problem. There are many niche tools and domain specific languages that >> are not popular or widely known, yet they serve a purpose and are in active >> use. > > Yes but who can make a living from them? For each success claimed by a > niche language, there will be hundreds written using mainstream languages > and tools. If one wants to make a living from programming one must go to > where the work is. Well, I made a living from Forth for over 30 years (I'm mostly retired now). There has always been work, and continues to be for Leon Wagner and his colleagues at FORTH, Inc. It's not about the numbers... yes, there are still more projects in C and more recent languages, but there is still a need for Forth in the companies that want to really get the most out of their products. 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 | Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-04 09:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <02c2ae4eddb7ef365ec382aeb7f5b76b@remailer.paranoici.org> |
| In reply to | #15904 |
"Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> wrote: > Yes but who can make a living from them? For each success claimed by a > niche language, there will be hundreds written using mainstream languages > and tools. If one wants to make a living from programming one must go to > where the work is. Who's holding a gun to your head and saying you must use Forth? The work is where you find it. Obviously by definition there are magnitudes more people using "mainstream" languages and tools. That doesn't mean the DSLs or specifically Forth aren't good choices in their niche.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-10 00:10 +1000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <k517s4$v53$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15909 |
Anonymous wrote: > "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> wrote: > > > Yes but who can make a living from them? For each success claimed by a > > niche language, there will be hundreds written using mainstream languages > > and tools. If one wants to make a living from programming one must go to > > where the work is. > > Who's holding a gun to your head and saying you must use Forth? Those who claim only Forth can get the most out of your product :) > The work is > where you find it. Obviously by definition there are magnitudes more people > using "mainstream" languages and tools. That doesn't mean the DSLs or > specifically Forth aren't good choices in their niche. Employers generally allow one choice - "take it or leave it"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 16:42 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <1959153.WGPeNqMep8@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #16095 |
Ed wrote: > Employers generally allow one choice - "take it or leave it" I haven't encountered such an employer yet. Even the ones I chose to leave allowed me to use Forth. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 14:01 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <k51op4$4o6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16096 |
On 10/9/2012 10:42 AM, Bernd Paysan wrote: > Ed wrote: >> Employers generally allow one choice - "take it or leave it" > > I haven't encountered such an employer yet. Even the ones I chose to > leave allowed me to use Forth. I have yet to find an employer who is ok with using Forth. Typically they have a modus operandi and aren't interested in exploring new ground. They especially fear dealing with a unique language that the bulk of the staff knows nothing about. This may or may not be justifiable, but it is there. In 35+ years working as an engineer, I have never once been able to use a commercial Forth in my work. It is only since I've been working for myself I've been able to justify using Win32Forth for text fixtures. I did come close to using MPE forth in a project this fall, but the job didn't land. The company decided they didn't have the resources to proceed with the product. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 11:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <7xfw5nscys.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #16108 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> I haven't encountered such an employer yet. Even the ones I chose to >> leave allowed me to use Forth. > I have yet to find an employer who is ok with using Forth. We're shaking out a new piece of hardware where I work. If the hardware guys happened to be Forthers and wanted to use Forth as a benchtop debugging tool to poke at registers during development, it would probably be fine. There's no way the software guys (e.g. me) would ever be allowed to put Forth into the actual end product. Outside of small embedded devices that have no long-term code base (develop, test, finished--hopefully no updates ever), since programmers come and go, any code inside a product has to expect to be maintained by more than one person. That means a decision to let one person use Forth is also a decision to require other people to maintain that Forth, which in turn creates the need to find or train more Forthers. Avoiding that headache is a perfectly sound decision unless you're already running a Forth shop (there are of course a few of these that are doing ok). It's less a matter of imposing conditions on the would-be Forth user, than avoiding imposing on the non-Forth-users who are going to have to deal with the code later.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 09:02 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <u8OdnRBvpM8o6enNnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #16110 |
On 10/9/12 8:43 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >>> I haven't encountered such an employer yet. Even the ones I chose to >>> leave allowed me to use Forth. >> I have yet to find an employer who is ok with using Forth. > > We're shaking out a new piece of hardware where I work. If the hardware > guys happened to be Forthers and wanted to use Forth as a benchtop > debugging tool to poke at registers during development, it would > probably be fine. There's no way the software guys (e.g. me) would ever > be allowed to put Forth into the actual end product. > > Outside of small embedded devices that have no long-term code base > (develop, test, finished--hopefully no updates ever), since programmers > come and go, any code inside a product has to expect to be maintained by > more than one person. That means a decision to let one person use Forth > is also a decision to require other people to maintain that Forth, which > in turn creates the need to find or train more Forthers. Avoiding that > headache is a perfectly sound decision unless you're already running a > Forth shop (there are of course a few of these that are doing ok). > > It's less a matter of imposing conditions on the would-be Forth user, > than avoiding imposing on the non-Forth-users who are going to have to > deal with the code later. > A considerable number of our clients have been using Forth for years, some for decades. They report that it's relatively easy to teach a capable programmer who understands the application domain Forth. Far easier, in fact, than training a Forth programmer who doesn't understanding the engineering and other application domain issues! Most of these companies do in-house training by giving the programmer some books (e.g. Forth Application Techniques) plus documentation on the existing code base and providing some mentoring. In a few cases, when they have a number of new hires or new people assigned to the project, they bring in an instructor such as me for a formal course. A typical way in which Forth gets in to such a shop goes like this: an engineer starts work on a new widget (remember, FORTH, Inc. is mainly working in embedded systems). He has used Forth in a previous company. He writes the initial code for the widget in Forth, and gets it working much quicker (or more efficiently, or whatever) than the tools other folks in the shop have used. So, management is impressed and lets the other engineers learn Forth, take a course, or whatever. 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 | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 15:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <k51u9b$c02$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16114 |
On 10/9/2012 3:02 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 10/9/12 8:43 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: >> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >>>> I haven't encountered such an employer yet. Even the ones I chose to >>>> leave allowed me to use Forth. >>> I have yet to find an employer who is ok with using Forth. >> >> We're shaking out a new piece of hardware where I work. If the hardware >> guys happened to be Forthers and wanted to use Forth as a benchtop >> debugging tool to poke at registers during development, it would >> probably be fine. There's no way the software guys (e.g. me) would ever >> be allowed to put Forth into the actual end product. >> >> Outside of small embedded devices that have no long-term code base >> (develop, test, finished--hopefully no updates ever), since programmers >> come and go, any code inside a product has to expect to be maintained by >> more than one person. That means a decision to let one person use Forth >> is also a decision to require other people to maintain that Forth, which >> in turn creates the need to find or train more Forthers. Avoiding that >> headache is a perfectly sound decision unless you're already running a >> Forth shop (there are of course a few of these that are doing ok). >> >> It's less a matter of imposing conditions on the would-be Forth user, >> than avoiding imposing on the non-Forth-users who are going to have to >> deal with the code later. >> > > A considerable number of our clients have been using Forth for years, > some for decades. They report that it's relatively easy to teach a > capable programmer who understands the application domain Forth. Far > easier, in fact, than training a Forth programmer who doesn't > understanding the engineering and other application domain issues! > > Most of these companies do in-house training by giving the programmer > some books (e.g. Forth Application Techniques) plus documentation on the > existing code base and providing some mentoring. In a few cases, when > they have a number of new hires or new people assigned to the project, > they bring in an instructor such as me for a formal course. > > A typical way in which Forth gets in to such a shop goes like this: an > engineer starts work on a new widget (remember, FORTH, Inc. is mainly > working in embedded systems). He has used Forth in a previous company. > He writes the initial code for the widget in Forth, and gets it working > much quicker (or more efficiently, or whatever) than the tools other > folks in the shop have used. So, management is impressed and lets the > other engineers learn Forth, take a course, or whatever. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth How does the engineer get the code working when money has to be spent on a commercial Forth package? If I didn't need to spend money, I would have had Forth on my lab bench many times over. That's not the problem now, I work for myself. Now I just need work where I do programming. Most of my work is hardware design and I'm happy with the open source Forths for test from a PC. I may be using the WikiReader in the future. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 09:53 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <y-mdnZF5prAtHenNnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #16121 |
On 10/9/12 9:34 AM, rickman wrote: > On 10/9/2012 3:02 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: ... >> A typical way in which Forth gets in to such a shop goes like this: an >> engineer starts work on a new widget (remember, FORTH, Inc. is mainly >> working in embedded systems). He has used Forth in a previous company. >> He writes the initial code for the widget in Forth, and gets it working >> much quicker (or more efficiently, or whatever) than the tools other >> folks in the shop have used. So, management is impressed and lets the >> other engineers learn Forth, take a course, or whatever. >> >> Cheers, >> Elizabeth > > How does the engineer get the code working when money has to be spent on > a commercial Forth package? If I didn't need to spend money, I would > have had Forth on my lab bench many times over. > > That's not the problem now, I work for myself. Now I just need work > where I do programming. Most of my work is hardware design and I'm > happy with the open source Forths for test from a PC. I may be using > the WikiReader in the future. Either by using an evaluation version of the product as a proof of concept, or simply by requesting it. Most companies are accustomed to purchasing development software, and the commercial Forths aren't significantly more expensive (often less) than comparable products. An engineer with prior experience with Forth can assert that a demonstrable prototype can be developed faster/smaller/whatever than with the tools currently in use, and then demonstrate it. The margin of difference is usually so large that management has no problem approving a purchase once the claim is validated. 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 | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 16:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <k5204r$p41$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16124 |
On 10/9/2012 3:53 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 10/9/12 9:34 AM, rickman wrote: >> On 10/9/2012 3:02 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > ... >>> A typical way in which Forth gets in to such a shop goes like this: an >>> engineer starts work on a new widget (remember, FORTH, Inc. is mainly >>> working in embedded systems). He has used Forth in a previous company. >>> He writes the initial code for the widget in Forth, and gets it working >>> much quicker (or more efficiently, or whatever) than the tools other >>> folks in the shop have used. So, management is impressed and lets the >>> other engineers learn Forth, take a course, or whatever. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Elizabeth >> >> How does the engineer get the code working when money has to be spent on >> a commercial Forth package? If I didn't need to spend money, I would >> have had Forth on my lab bench many times over. >> >> That's not the problem now, I work for myself. Now I just need work >> where I do programming. Most of my work is hardware design and I'm >> happy with the open source Forths for test from a PC. I may be using >> the WikiReader in the future. > > Either by using an evaluation version of the product as a proof of > concept, or simply by requesting it. Most companies are accustomed to > purchasing development software, and the commercial Forths aren't > significantly more expensive (often less) than comparable products. > > An engineer with prior experience with Forth can assert that a > demonstrable prototype can be developed faster/smaller/whatever than > with the tools currently in use, and then demonstrate it. The margin of > difference is usually so large that management has no problem approving > a purchase once the claim is validated. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth We had this conversation some time back when I was trying to "assert" the advantages of Forth where I worked. I can "assert" all day long, but it doesn't get believed by hardware managers (or anyone in the software domain). I also noticed that you used the qualifier, and engineer "with prior experience". That would leave me out wouldn't it? How much functionality is in the eval copies of Forth Inc embedded Forths? Would I be able to develop a product with it? I haven't dug into that lately, but I don't recall that it was practical to do any development work with the eval version. As to cost, Forth may be similar in cost to other code development tools, but in this context it is a superfluous expense since the other tools already exist in the company. At least that is how managers view it. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-09 17:00 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <ab-dnVuPFrRSeenNnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #16125 |
On 10/9/12 10:06 AM, rickman wrote: > On 10/9/2012 3:53 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 10/9/12 9:34 AM, rickman wrote: ... >>> How does the engineer get the code working when money has to be spent on >>> a commercial Forth package? If I didn't need to spend money, I would >>> have had Forth on my lab bench many times over. >>> >>> That's not the problem now, I work for myself. Now I just need work >>> where I do programming. Most of my work is hardware design and I'm >>> happy with the open source Forths for test from a PC. I may be using >>> the WikiReader in the future. >> >> Either by using an evaluation version of the product as a proof of >> concept, or simply by requesting it. Most companies are accustomed to >> purchasing development software, and the commercial Forths aren't >> significantly more expensive (often less) than comparable products. >> >> An engineer with prior experience with Forth can assert that a >> demonstrable prototype can be developed faster/smaller/whatever than >> with the tools currently in use, and then demonstrate it. The margin of >> difference is usually so large that management has no problem approving >> a purchase once the claim is validated. >> >> Cheers, >> Elizabeth > > We had this conversation some time back when I was trying to "assert" > the advantages of Forth where I worked. I can "assert" all day long, > but it doesn't get believed by hardware managers (or anyone in the > software domain). I also noticed that you used the qualifier, and > engineer "with prior experience". That would leave me out wouldn't it? The advantage of the prior experience is that the "assertion" carries a lot more weight since it will reference actual projects and experience of this particular individual. Plus, it removes the issue of learning curve, which scares a lot of managers. The two most common paths by which FORTH, Inc. has gotten Forth into other companies are: 1. Migration of a previous user into a new company (as above), and 2. A new project, wherein FORTH, Inc. bids the job in weeks instead of the months that competitors using other languages are quoting. Once we've done the project, they're convinced and want to train their own staff. Without actual project experience, you'd be at a disadvantage politically, though less so in practice. > How much functionality is in the eval copies of Forth Inc embedded > Forths? Would I be able to develop a product with it? I haven't dug > into that lately, but I don't recall that it was practical to do any > development work with the eval version. Target programs are limited in size. Functionality is at the level of the "pro" version (all capabilities). All source is provided for the target kernel and library functions, along with at least one complete example program. Try one! > As to cost, Forth may be similar in cost to other code development > tools, but in this context it is a superfluous expense since the other > tools already exist in the company. At least that is how managers view it. So, the next opportunity would be when you're addressing a new target for which you don't have a compiler :-) 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 | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-10 20:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <k555c4$5hg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #16143 |
On 10/9/2012 11:00 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 10/9/12 10:06 AM, rickman wrote: >> On 10/9/2012 3:53 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >>> On 10/9/12 9:34 AM, rickman wrote: > .... >>>> How does the engineer get the code working when money has to be >>>> spent on >>>> a commercial Forth package? If I didn't need to spend money, I would >>>> have had Forth on my lab bench many times over. >>>> >>>> That's not the problem now, I work for myself. Now I just need work >>>> where I do programming. Most of my work is hardware design and I'm >>>> happy with the open source Forths for test from a PC. I may be using >>>> the WikiReader in the future. >>> >>> Either by using an evaluation version of the product as a proof of >>> concept, or simply by requesting it. Most companies are accustomed to >>> purchasing development software, and the commercial Forths aren't >>> significantly more expensive (often less) than comparable products. >>> >>> An engineer with prior experience with Forth can assert that a >>> demonstrable prototype can be developed faster/smaller/whatever than >>> with the tools currently in use, and then demonstrate it. The margin of >>> difference is usually so large that management has no problem approving >>> a purchase once the claim is validated. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Elizabeth >> >> We had this conversation some time back when I was trying to "assert" >> the advantages of Forth where I worked. I can "assert" all day long, >> but it doesn't get believed by hardware managers (or anyone in the >> software domain). I also noticed that you used the qualifier, and >> engineer "with prior experience". That would leave me out wouldn't it? > > The advantage of the prior experience is that the "assertion" carries a > lot more weight since it will reference actual projects and experience > of this particular individual. Plus, it removes the issue of learning > curve, which scares a lot of managers. > > The two most common paths by which FORTH, Inc. has gotten Forth into > other companies are: > > 1. Migration of a previous user into a new company (as above), and > > 2. A new project, wherein FORTH, Inc. bids the job in weeks instead of > the months that competitors using other languages are quoting. Once > we've done the project, they're convinced and want to train their own > staff. > > Without actual project experience, you'd be at a disadvantage > politically, though less so in practice. I think you are explaining something to me I already know and am reporting to you. >> How much functionality is in the eval copies of Forth Inc embedded >> Forths? Would I be able to develop a product with it? I haven't dug >> into that lately, but I don't recall that it was practical to do any >> development work with the eval version. > > Target programs are limited in size. Functionality is at the level of > the "pro" version (all capabilities). All source is provided for the > target kernel and library functions, along with at least one complete > example program. Try one! What is the size limit? >> As to cost, Forth may be similar in cost to other code development >> tools, but in this context it is a superfluous expense since the other >> tools already exist in the company. At least that is how managers view >> it. > > So, the next opportunity would be when you're addressing a new target > for which you don't have a compiler :-) I don't work for one of these large companies anymore. The next opportunity is the next time I get paying work. In the mean time I will take a look at the eval copies. I seem to recall the target eval systems are somewhat limited the last time I looked, but that has been a while so I'll do a refresh. Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-10-11 19:26 -1000 |
| Subject | Re: Your next supercomputer! Just $99 for 16 ARM cores on a chip. |
| Message-ID | <DKidnXJwa5OCN-rNnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #16170 |
On 10/10/12 2:54 PM, rickman wrote: > On 10/9/2012 11:00 PM, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 10/9/12 10:06 AM, rickman wrote: ... >>> How much functionality is in the eval copies of Forth Inc embedded >>> Forths? Would I be able to develop a product with it? I haven't dug >>> into that lately, but I don't recall that it was practical to do any >>> development work with the eval version. >> >> Target programs are limited in size. Functionality is at the level of >> the "pro" version (all capabilities). All source is provided for the >> target kernel and library functions, along with at least one complete >> example program. Try one! > > What is the size limit? It depends on the target. Basically, enough for a "typical" kernel (kernels are entirely configurable) plus a demo application provided with the system. However, you can't save an object image. What you *can* do is write a small application and test it. >>> As to cost, Forth may be similar in cost to other code development >>> tools, but in this context it is a superfluous expense since the other >>> tools already exist in the company. At least that is how managers view >>> it. >> >> So, the next opportunity would be when you're addressing a new target >> for which you don't have a compiler :-) > > I don't work for one of these large companies anymore. The next > opportunity is the next time I get paying work. In the mean time I will > take a look at the eval copies. I seem to recall the target eval > systems are somewhat limited the last time I looked, but that has been a > while so I'll do a refresh. There's a feature comparison chart here: http://www.forth.com/embedded/swiftx-embedded-systems-13.html 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]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web