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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #32978 > unrolled thread

SynthOS - the end for Forth on microcontrollers or a challenge for Forth only?

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

Contents

  SynthOS - the end for Forth on microcontrollers or a challenge for Forth only? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-08-20 08:23 -0700
    Re: SynthOS - the end for Forth on microcontrollers or a challenge for Forth only? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2014-08-20 09:05 -0700
    Re: SynthOS - the end for Forth on microcontrollers or a challenge for Forth only? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-08-20 12:16 -0500
    Re: SynthOS - the end for Forth on microcontrollers or a challenge for Forth only? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-08-20 20:58 +0000
    Re: SynthOS - the end for Forth on microcontrollers or a challenge for Forth only? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-08-20 22:00 +0100
      Re: SynthOS - the end for Forth on microcontrollers or a challenge for Forth only? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-08-21 03:10 -0700
        Re: SynthOS - the end for Forth on microcontrollers or a challenge for Forth only? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2014-08-22 01:43 +0100
          Re: SynthOS - the end for Forth on microcontrollers or a challenge for Forth only? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-08-22 00:41 -0700
    Re: SynthOS - the end for Forth on microcontrollers or a challenge for Forth only? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-08-21 10:17 -0700

#32978 — SynthOS - the end for Forth on microcontrollers or a challenge for Forth only?

"SynthOS(tm) is a revolutionary tool that synthesizes an application specific operating system ("ASOS") based on some basic system criteria and the applications running on top of it. There is no need for the developer to worry about setting semaphores, mutexes, or priority flags or creating task context blocks, message queues, task mailboxes-these are all created automatically. There is no need to worry about race conditions, deadlocks, processor hogging, or unserviced tasks because the ASOS is correct-by-design. The resulting ASOS is portable to any processor and is optimized for speed, size, latency times, and security." That's what I just read about SynthOS.
Source: http://www.synthosonline.com/

Here what they claim:

SynthOS creates ... an extremely small footprint. SynthOS has a very small learning curve; it greatly improves reliability.

SynthOS requires the knowledge of only five primitives rather than over 100 APIs as with many RTOSs. 

It allows a faster time to market because of the short learning curve. Plus the OS is correct by design, thereby cutting down debug time.

SynthOS creates a very small footprint OS. Some of our demos have ... less than 1K bytes. This means you can squeeze entire systems onto an FPGA or SoC without external memory.

It lowers hardware costs because you can now put multitasking systems on simple, cheap, 8-bit and even 4-bit processors without external memory chips. 

Your system is portable to new processors because it doesn't rely on specific processor hardware for supporting the OS.

Source: http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=216&doc_id=1323577

Is this the end for Forth on microcontrollers or only a challenge for Forth?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#32979

It might be correct by design, but it doesn't address an important thing these days: the low power consumption. If you read their pdf manual, it states clearly that there is no "sleep" facility, but the user can implement such thing by their own. And it is an example there. That kind of "sleep" is only possible by busy waiting to the condition. So the mcu can't be put in a real hardware sleeping mode... 

For me it seems that this SynthOS is just a toy. I think it will not be dangerous even for the current RTOSes and the C world.

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

#32980

visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:
> 
> Is this the end for Forth on microcontrollers or only a challenge for Forth?

It looks very similar to Forth on microcontrollers, but without the
interaction.  I guess C programmers might like it.

Andrew.

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

#32981

In article <1e32867d-19b5-42dd-af21-ca705dcd5edb@googlegroups.com>,
 <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>"SynthOS(tm) is a revolutionary tool that synthesizes an application specific operating system
>("ASOS") based on some basic system criteria and the applications running on top of it. There
>is no need for the developer to worry about setting semaphores, mutexes, or priority flags or
>creating task context blocks, message queues, task mailboxes-these are all created
>automatically. There is no need to worry about race conditions, deadlocks, processor hogging,
>or unserviced tasks because the ASOS is correct-by-design. The resulting ASOS is portable to
>any processor and is optimized for speed, size, latency times, and security." That's what I
>just read about SynthOS.
>Source: http://www.synthosonline.com/
>
>Here what they claim:
>
>SynthOS creates ... an extremely small footprint. SynthOS has a very small learning curve; it
>greatly improves reliability.
>
>SynthOS requires the knowledge of only five primitives rather than over 100 APIs as with many RTOSs.
>
>It allows a faster time to market because of the short learning curve. Plus the OS is correct
>by design, thereby cutting down debug time.
>
>SynthOS creates a very small footprint OS. Some of our demos have ... less than 1K bytes. This
>means you can squeeze entire systems onto an FPGA or SoC without external memory.
>
>It lowers hardware costs because you can now put multitasking systems on simple, cheap, 8-bit
>and even 4-bit processors without external memory chips.
>
>Your system is portable to new processors because it doesn't rely on specific processor
>hardware for supporting the OS.
>
>Source: http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=216&doc_id=1323577
>
>Is this the end for Forth on microcontrollers or only a challenge for Forth?

If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is.

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]

#32982

visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:

> "SynthOS(tm) is a revolutionary tool that synthesizes an application
> specific operating system ("ASOS") based on some basic system criteria and
> the applications running on top of it. There is no need for the developer
> to worry about setting semaphores, mutexes, or priority flags or creating
> task context blocks, message queues, task mailboxes-these are all created
> automatically. There is no need to worry about race conditions, deadlocks,
> processor hogging, or unserviced tasks because the ASOS is
> correct-by-design. The resulting ASOS is portable to any processor and is
> optimized for speed, size, latency times, and security." That's what I
> just read about SynthOS. Source: http://www.synthosonline.com/
> 
> Here what they claim:
> 
> SynthOS creates ... an extremely small footprint. SynthOS has a very small
> learning curve; it greatly improves reliability.
> 
> SynthOS requires the knowledge of only five primitives rather than over
> 100 APIs as with many RTOSs.
> 
> It allows a faster time to market because of the short learning curve.
> Plus the OS is correct by design, thereby cutting down debug time.
> 
> SynthOS creates a very small footprint OS. Some of our demos have ... less
> than 1K bytes. This means you can squeeze entire systems onto an FPGA or
> SoC without external memory.
> 
> It lowers hardware costs because you can now put multitasking systems on
> simple, cheap, 8-bit and even 4-bit processors without external memory
> chips.
> 
> Your system is portable to new processors because it doesn't rely on
> specific processor hardware for supporting the OS.
> 
> Source: http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=216&doc_id=1323577
> 
> Is this the end for Forth on microcontrollers or only a challenge for
> Forth?

If no-one is putting effort into establishing this SynthOS onto the 
processor of your choice, who is going to have sufficient overview to know 
the quality of what is embedded onto the hardware to be able to produce 
certification for systems where such things matter?

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

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

#32988

On Wednesday, 20 August 2014 22:00:29 UTC+1, Paul E Bennett  wrote:
> 
> If no-one is putting effort into establishing this SynthOS onto the 
> processor of your choice, who is going to have sufficient overview to know 
> the quality of what is embedded onto the hardware to be able to produce 
> certification for systems where such things matter?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> ********************************************************************
> 
> Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
> 
> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk>
> 
> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
> 
> Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
> 
> Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
> 
> ********************************************************************

Hi Paul,

Any OS that is treated as a black box cannot be easily certified, as we know. It may be possible to take credit for an OS using the "proven in use" concept, but I haven't met a certifying authority (yet) that is prepared to accept that for modern operating systems such as Windows, Linux, and QNX. How does one quantify it for a PFD calculation? These are the sort of questions that I have never been able to get a satisfactory answer to!

Certification is extremely unlikely unless the OS is very simple and could be fully de-constructed and fully understood. It would be more cost-effective to start from scratch, with an in-house design, following appropriate design standards (e.g. 61508).

I've some experience with safety-critical software systems. As we know, one starts by reducing the problem definition into its most simplest constituents. Simplicity=good, complexity=bad. I start by *not* having an operating system. They've all worked. The first one I did was for BP in 1999 (IIRC) at the Grangemouth refinery. It's still in use, since the original vendor still supports the hardware.

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

#32998

Mark Wills wrote:

> On Wednesday, 20 August 2014 22:00:29 UTC+1, Paul E Bennett  wrote:
>> 
>> If no-one is putting effort into establishing this SynthOS onto the
>> processor of your choice, who is going to have sufficient overview to
>> know the quality of what is embedded onto the hardware to be able to
>> produce certification for systems where such things matter?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> ********************************************************************
>> 
>> Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
>> 
>> Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk>
>> 
>> Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
>> 
>> Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
>> 
>> Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
>> 
>> ********************************************************************
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Any OS that is treated as a black box cannot be easily certified, as we
> know. It may be possible to take credit for an OS using the "proven in
> use" concept, but I haven't met a certifying authority (yet) that is
> prepared to accept that for modern operating systems such as Windows,
> Linux, and QNX. How does one quantify it for a PFD calculation? These are
> the sort of questions that I have never been able to get a satisfactory
> answer to!

My question was a bit 'tounge in cheek' but I have noted areas with other 
languages where they try to convince you of the worth of the certification 
but I still find it hard to beleive they have done a thorough enough job. 
NPL is still running a large number of compilations per evening on a range 
of C compilers and still not getting much agreement between compilers 
supposedly adhering to the same standard.
 
> Certification is extremely unlikely unless the OS is very simple and could
> be fully de-constructed and fully understood. It would be more
> cost-effective to start from scratch, with an in-house design, following
> appropriate design standards (e.g. 61508).
>
> I've some experience with safety-critical software systems. As we know,
> one starts by reducing the problem definition into its most simplest
> constituents. Simplicity=good, complexity=bad. I start by *not* having an
> operating system. They've all worked. The first one I did was for BP in
> 1999 (IIRC) at the Grangemouth refinery. It's still in use, since the
> original vendor still supports the hardware.

Seems like you and I are quite experienced in that arena. With a Forth based 
system it is not too hard to apply a full certification for code integrity 
and quality that is to at least the same standing as that for electronics 
hardware.


Regards

Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET
Systems Engineer

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-510979
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

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

#33001

On Friday, 22 August 2014 01:43:18 UTC+1, Paul E Bennett  wrote:
> 
> Seems like you and I are quite experienced in that arena. With a Forth based 
> system it is not too hard to apply a full certification for code integrity 
> and quality that is to at least the same standing as that for electronics 
> hardware.

Fully agree. In the context of certification of safety-critical software, Forth is the best solution that I have yet encountered. It's a gift!

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

#32995

visualforth@rocketmail.com writes:
> Is this the end for Forth on microcontrollers or only a challenge for Forth?

From the web site:

    "First create an online account using the menu on the left. Once you
    have an account, log in and follow the directions for uploading your
    source code and project file. Then run a SynthOS job. You'll be
    notified by email when your job is complete. Then simply follow the
    directions to download your synthesized code that includes your
    synthesized ASOS. If an error has occurred, your email will tell you
    and you'll be able to correct the error, upload your files, and run
    another synthesis job until you get it right."

Cloud-hosted OS generation?  Heh, no thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web