Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #42901 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-28 09:04 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-12-12 18:52 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 174 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 09:04 -0700
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 09:18 -0700
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 12:35 -0400
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 09:54 -0700
Re: Stoked lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 10:35 -0700
Re: Stoked Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 11:21 -0700
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 14:24 -0400
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 13:12 -0700
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 16:31 -0400
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 14:55 -0700
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 01:36 -0400
Re: Stoked Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 06:01 -0700
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 13:22 -0400
Re: Stoked Marcos Cruz <use_the_contact_page@programandala.net> - 2015-11-07 17:50 +0000
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 13:04 -0500
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-07 10:19 -0800
Re: Stoked "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-07 08:29 -1000
Re: Stoked hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-07 13:28 -0800
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-07 13:33 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 16:40 -0500
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-07 14:25 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 18:03 -0500
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-07 15:22 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 01:13 -0500
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-07 22:35 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 01:58 -0500
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-07 23:17 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 02:49 -0500
Re: Stoked Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 00:06 -0800
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-08 01:40 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 15:18 -0500
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-08 13:31 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 17:19 -0500
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-11 20:49 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 00:57 -0500
Re: Stoked hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-11 22:24 -0800
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-11 23:34 -0800
Re: Stoked Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 00:03 -0800
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-12 19:37 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 15:24 -0500
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-12 13:18 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-12 16:40 -0500
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-12 20:59 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-13 01:50 -0500
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-12 23:11 -0800
Re: Stoked forthisit@gmail.com - 2015-11-12 13:47 -0800
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-12 16:27 -0800
Re: Stoked "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-12 12:18 -1000
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-13 00:28 -0800
Re: Stoked "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-11 22:37 -1000
Re: Stoked hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-12 23:37 -0800
Re: Stoked Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-09 14:19 +0000
Re: Stoked Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-23 07:47 +0100
Re: Stoked Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-23 11:27 +0000
Re: Stoked Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-23 13:43 +0100
Re: Stoked "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-08 12:49 -1000
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 19:20 -0500
Re: Stoked "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-07 23:44 -1000
Re: Stoked Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-08 18:23 +0000
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-08 10:32 -0800
Re: Stoked Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-08 18:45 +0000
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-08 10:53 -0800
Re: Stoked Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-08 21:25 +0000
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-08 14:09 -0800
Re: Stoked "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-11-09 05:32 -0500
Re: Stoked Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-09 14:58 +0000
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 23:42 -0500
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-08 21:11 -0800
Re: Stoked Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-15 12:50 +0100
Re: Stoked Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 23:56 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 03:24 -0500
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-08 01:31 -0800
Re: Stoked "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-07 23:57 -1000
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-08 02:18 -0800
Re: Stoked "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-08 08:33 -1000
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 00:07 -0500
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 23:49 -0500
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-08 21:06 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 00:20 -0500
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-08 22:51 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-09 02:22 -0500
Re: Stoked Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 04:32 -0800
Re: Stoked Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-10 13:48 +0000
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-10 16:17 -0500
Re: Stoked "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-11-10 17:26 -0500
Re: Stoked "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-08 21:50 -1000
Re: Stoked stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-09 12:15 +0000
Re: Stoked Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-09 15:09 +0000
Re: Stoked Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-24 09:47 +0100
Re: Stoked stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-24 12:54 +0000
Re: Stoked Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-24 15:03 +0100
Emulating a 16-bit Forth Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-25 13:18 +0100
Re: Emulating a 16-bit Forth Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-11-25 14:08 +0100
Re: Stoked Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-09 14:30 +0000
Re: Stoked Bernd Linsel <bl1@gmx.com> - 2015-11-09 18:27 +0100
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-10 00:50 -0800
Re: Stoked "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-07 23:52 -1000
Re: Stoked "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-07 23:16 -1000
Re: Stoked "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-07 23:07 -1000
Re: Stoked Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-08 17:58 +0000
Re: Stoked "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-07 12:00 -1000
Re: Stoked Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-08 17:49 +0000
Re: Stoked stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-10-28 23:24 +0000
Re: Stoked Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-28 17:30 -0700
Re: Stoked Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@antispam.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-10-29 02:40 +0000
Re: Stoked stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-10-29 10:11 +0000
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 21:07 -0700
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-28 21:16 -0700
Re: Stoked franck.bensusan@gmail.com - 2015-10-29 01:35 -0700
Re: Stoked stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-10-29 10:16 +0000
Re: Stoked lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 03:35 -0700
Re: Stoked lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 03:48 -0700
Re: Stoked mhx@iae.nl - 2015-10-29 11:31 -0700
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 12:01 -0700
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-29 12:26 -0700
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 15:29 -0400
Re: Stoked mhx@iae.nl - 2015-10-29 13:27 -0700
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 16:48 -0400
Re: Stoked josv@planet.nl - 2015-10-29 14:58 -0700
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 01:36 -0400
Re: Stoked josv@planet.nl - 2015-10-30 04:34 -0700
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 13:28 -0400
Re: Stoked josv@planet.nl - 2015-10-30 12:05 -0700
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:32 -0400
Re: Stoked "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-30 18:53 -1000
Re: Stoked josv@planet.nl - 2015-11-01 04:28 -0800
Re: Stoked hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-11-03 22:27 -0800
Re: Stoked mhx@iae.nl - 2015-10-29 16:47 -0700
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 01:33 -0400
Re: Stoked mhx@iae.nl - 2015-10-31 00:55 -0700
Re: Stoked stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-10-30 11:52 +0000
Re: Stoked josv@planet.nl - 2015-10-29 14:49 -0700
Re: Stoked stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-10-30 11:50 +0000
Re: Stoked Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 18:39 +0100
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 11:11 -0700
Re: Stoked Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 20:01 +0100
Re: Stoked hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-28 12:34 -0700
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 13:09 -0700
Re: Stoked François <francois.ganza@wanadoo.fr> - 2015-10-28 15:25 -0700
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 21:01 -0700
Re: Stoked "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-29 01:58 -0400
Re: Stoked Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 23:34 -0700
Re: Stoked Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-10-29 08:56 +0100
Re: Stoked "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-28 18:41 -0400
Re: Stoked josv@planet.nl - 2015-10-29 05:28 -0700
Re: Stoked "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-12-12 11:25 -0500
Re: Stoked "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-12-12 08:43 -1000
Re: Stoked hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-12-16 13:45 -0800
Re: Stoked hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-12-17 10:26 -0800
Re: Stoked Rob Sciuk <rob@controlq.com> - 2015-12-13 23:29 -0500
Re: Stoked Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 22:31 -0800
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-28 15:52 -0700
Re: Stoked anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-29 16:57 +0000
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-29 12:36 -0700
Re: Stoked anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-31 14:57 +0000
Re: Stoked Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-10-31 20:25 +0100
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-03 20:39 -0800
Re: Stoked Pablo Hugo Reda <pabloreda@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 16:27 -0700
Re: Stoked Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:57 -0700
Re: Stoked "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-11-02 13:15 +1100
Re: Stoked François <francois.ganza@wanadoo.fr> - 2015-11-02 02:08 -0800
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-28 09:28 -0700
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 09:37 -0700
Re: Stoked Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-28 10:28 -0700
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 10:52 -0700
Re: Stoked anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-28 18:14 +0000
Re: Stoked François <francois.ganza@wanadoo.fr> - 2015-10-28 15:20 -0700
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 21:16 -0700
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 12:13 -0700
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 15:34 -0400
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 13:57 -0800
Re: Stoked rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-07 17:19 -0500
Re: Stoked François <francois.ganza@wanadoo.fr> - 2015-11-09 00:10 -0800
Re: Stoked Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 18:52 -0800
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 09:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Stoked |
| Message-ID | <d8be4416-4e14-49f8-b54f-54665bd7639a@googlegroups.com> |
I now have my own working Forth that I wrote in x86 assembler. The EXE is 17k and I built it with 8MB of memory for the code and dictionary. If I assume that a typical word uses 64 bytes, then that gives me room for 130,000 words, give or take. And it very easy to increase that space if need be. Sorry to be a bother, but I'm excited about this and want to share it with someone, and I feel like you folks would understand best.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba0d541b-dec8-466b-b5a2-9752323f574d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42901 |
It is not very fast though ... : test begin ?dup if 1 - else exit then again ; 10000000 test \ about 6 seconds for 10 million iterations
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 12:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0qtc8$9ta$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42902 |
On 10/28/2015 12:18 PM, Chris Curl wrote: > It is not very fast though ... > > : test begin ?dup if 1 - else exit then again ; > > 10000000 test \ about 6 seconds for 10 million iterations So, are you ready to use someone else's forth, like gforth or Win32Forth? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 09:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <284a0c81-1d04-406d-a84b-39d4617375f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42904 |
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > On 10/28/2015 12:18 PM, Chris Curl wrote: > > It is not very fast though ... > > > > : test begin ?dup if 1 - else exit then again ; > > > > 10 000 000 test \ about 6 seconds for 10 million iterations > > So, are you ready to use someone else's forth, like gforth or Win32Forth? > > -- > > Rick I misspoke about the performance. It is 6 seconds for 100 million iterations, not 10 million. And while 6 seconds for about a billion instructions may be slow compared to other implementations, I think it is plenty fast enough for what I am using it for at the moment. I don't know how this compares to other implementations, but if they are not a whole lot faster than mine, then there is something seriously wrong with them. After all, this is my first pass at this, my x86 assembler programming is very rusty after being away from it for 20 years, and I have only devoted a few hours a day on this for a couple of weeks. Switching to someone else's Forth at this point would be for quitters. I'm not a quitter. I'm just starting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4dff4206-8bd3-4c91-b0fa-ab9747b5f5b1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42907 |
Den onsdag 28 oktober 2015 kl. 17:54:20 UTC+1 skrev Chris Curl: > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > > On 10/28/2015 12:18 PM, Chris Curl wrote: > > > It is not very fast though ... > > > > > > : test begin ?dup if 1 - else exit then again ; > > > > > > 10 000 000 test \ about 6 seconds for 10 million iterations > > > > So, are you ready to use someone else's forth, like gforth or Win32Forth? > > > > -- > > > > Rick > I misspoke about the performance. It is 6 seconds for 100 million iterations, not 10 million. > > And while 6 seconds for about a billion instructions may be slow compared to other implementations, I think it is plenty fast enough for what I am using it for at the moment. > > I don't know how this compares to other implementations, but if they are not a whole lot faster than mine, then there is something seriously wrong with them. After all, this is my first pass at this, my x86 assembler programming is very rusty after being away from it for 20 years, and I have only devoted a few hours a day on this for a couple of weeks. > > Switching to someone else's Forth at this point would be for quitters. I'm not a quitter. I'm just starting. 64 bit GForth 100000000 test 0,9 seconds 32 bit SP-Forth 1/3 seconds But SP-Forth runs an optimized code and seems to work as a high level macro assembler. Would it be possible to invoke something like that in your Forth? That is, when loading the compiler traverse the code and compile the machine code with corrected jump-addresses...?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 11:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03bf290b-fae5-4d24-81eb-51dc28dc71bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42907 |
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 9:54:20 AM UTC-7, Chris Curl wrote: > Switching to someone else's Forth at this point would be for quitters. > I'm not a quitter. I'm just starting. Writing your own Forth is for real men. Wussies use other people's Forth. You are The Man! Jason
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 14:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0r3oc$5aa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42907 |
On 10/28/2015 12:54 PM, Chris Curl wrote: > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >> On 10/28/2015 12:18 PM, Chris Curl wrote: >>> It is not very fast though ... >>> >>> : test begin ?dup if 1 - else exit then again ; >>> >>> 10 000 000 test \ about 6 seconds for 10 million iterations >> >> So, are you ready to use someone else's forth, like gforth or Win32Forth? >> >> -- >> >> Rick > I misspoke about the performance. It is 6 seconds for 100 million iterations, not 10 million. > > And while 6 seconds for about a billion instructions may be slow compared to other implementations, I think it is plenty fast enough for what I am using it for at the moment. > > I don't know how this compares to other implementations, but if they are not a whole lot faster than mine, then there is something seriously wrong with them. After all, this is my first pass at this, my x86 assembler programming is very rusty after being away from it for 20 years, and I have only devoted a few hours a day on this for a couple of weeks. > > Switching to someone else's Forth at this point would be for quitters. I'm not a quitter. I'm just starting. Ok, enjoy. At some point I expect you may get tired of reinventing the wheel. Why not try working on something new instead of jumping on the "I want to write my own forth" bandwagon. There is a Mecrisp for embedded targets that could use lots of work in porting to new targets and developing code to control the peripherals on the many devices it does run on. I'm working to port it to the Microsemi SoC CPU/FPGA device. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 13:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <04be31b1-c9bb-45f2-9ccb-d1624ac4a63e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42918 |
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 2:24:18 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > > Ok, enjoy. At some point I expect you may get tired of reinventing the > wheel. Why not try working on something new instead of jumping on the > "I want to write my own forth" bandwagon. > > There is a Mecrisp for embedded targets that could use lots of work in > porting to new targets and developing code to control the peripherals on > the many devices it does run on. > > I'm working to port it to the Microsemi SoC CPU/FPGA device. > > -- > > Rick That could be interesting. Where can I get more info about this need?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 16:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0rb6d$4jk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42928 |
On 10/28/2015 4:12 PM, Chris Curl wrote: > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 2:24:18 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >> >> Ok, enjoy. At some point I expect you may get tired of reinventing the >> wheel. Why not try working on something new instead of jumping on the >> "I want to write my own forth" bandwagon. >> >> There is a Mecrisp for embedded targets that could use lots of work in >> porting to new targets and developing code to control the peripherals on >> the many devices it does run on. >> >> I'm working to port it to the Microsemi SoC CPU/FPGA device. >> >> -- >> >> Rick > That could be interesting. Where can I get more info about this need? http://bfy.tw/2WCf -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-28 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff9b70f9-6073-43aa-86dd-d6e2612cd7db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42918 |
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 2:24:18 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > ... > There is a Mecrisp for embedded targets that could use lots of work in > porting to new targets and developing code to control the peripherals on > the many devices it does run on. > > I'm working to port it to the Microsemi SoC CPU/FPGA device. > > -- > > Rick Your LMGTFY google search for mecrisp returns about 13,500 pages. Do you expect me to wade through those pages to find where someone talks about needing help porting to new targets, just so I am NOT implementing my own Forth on x86? That is not happening. Forget that I asked for more information about the "lots of work" you mentioned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 01:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n0sb5j$g7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42930 |
On 10/28/2015 5:55 PM, Chris Curl wrote: > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 2:24:18 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >> ... >> There is a Mecrisp for embedded targets that could use lots of work in >> porting to new targets and developing code to control the peripherals on >> the many devices it does run on. >> >> I'm working to port it to the Microsemi SoC CPU/FPGA device. >> >> -- >> >> Rick > Your LMGTFY google search for mecrisp returns about 13,500 pages. > Do you expect me to wade through those pages to find where someone talks > about needing help porting to new targets, just so I am NOT implementing my > own Forth on x86? That is not happening. Forget that I asked for more > information about the "lots of work" you mentioned. I believe the first hit in that search was to the Mecrisp page. I'm not sure what you are looking for other than that. You can contact the author and he would be happy to discuss the issue with you. I'm just surprised that you are so unwilling to do any leg work on your own. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 06:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3366adc-207e-402d-9dcd-83be9e9b1e23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42918 |
On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 2:24:18 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > On 10/28/2015 12:54 PM, Chris Curl wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > >> On 10/28/2015 12:18 PM, Chris Curl wrote: > >>> It is not very fast though ... > >>> > >>> : test begin ?dup if 1 - else exit then again ; > >>> > >>> 10 000 000 test \ about 6 seconds for 10 million iterations > >> > >> So, are you ready to use someone else's forth, like gforth or Win32Forth? > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Rick > > I misspoke about the performance. It is 6 seconds for 100 million iterations, not 10 million. > > > > And while 6 seconds for about a billion instructions may be slow compared to other implementations, I think it is plenty fast enough for what I am using it for at the moment. > > > > I don't know how this compares to other implementations, but if they are not a whole lot faster than mine, then there is something seriously wrong with them. After all, this is my first pass at this, my x86 assembler programming is very rusty after being away from it for 20 years, and I have only devoted a few hours a day on this for a couple of weeks. > > > > Switching to someone else's Forth at this point would be for quitters. I'm not a quitter. I'm just starting. > > Ok, enjoy. At some point I expect you may get tired of reinventing the > wheel. Why not try working on something new instead of jumping on the > "I want to write my own forth" bandwagon. > > There is a Mecrisp for embedded targets that could use lots of work in > porting to new targets and developing code to control the peripherals on > the many devices it does run on. > > I'm working to port it to the Microsemi SoC CPU/FPGA device. > > -- > > Rick If such a bandwagon exists, it is tiny and not densely peopled. I know. I'm on it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 13:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <n108tf$rjb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42998 |
On 10/30/2015 9:01 AM, Alfred Singlestone wrote: > On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 2:24:18 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >> On 10/28/2015 12:54 PM, Chris Curl wrote: >>> On Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >>>> On 10/28/2015 12:18 PM, Chris Curl wrote: >>>>> It is not very fast though ... >>>>> >>>>> : test begin ?dup if 1 - else exit then again ; >>>>> >>>>> 10 000 000 test \ about 6 seconds for 10 million iterations >>>> >>>> So, are you ready to use someone else's forth, like gforth or Win32Forth? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Rick >>> I misspoke about the performance. It is 6 seconds for 100 million iterations, not 10 million. >>> >>> And while 6 seconds for about a billion instructions may be slow compared to other implementations, I think it is plenty fast enough for what I am using it for at the moment. >>> >>> I don't know how this compares to other implementations, but if they are not a whole lot faster than mine, then there is something seriously wrong with them. After all, this is my first pass at this, my x86 assembler programming is very rusty after being away from it for 20 years, and I have only devoted a few hours a day on this for a couple of weeks. >>> >>> Switching to someone else's Forth at this point would be for quitters. I'm not a quitter. I'm just starting. >> >> Ok, enjoy. At some point I expect you may get tired of reinventing the >> wheel. Why not try working on something new instead of jumping on the >> "I want to write my own forth" bandwagon. >> >> There is a Mecrisp for embedded targets that could use lots of work in >> porting to new targets and developing code to control the peripherals on >> the many devices it does run on. >> >> I'm working to port it to the Microsemi SoC CPU/FPGA device. >> >> -- >> >> Rick > > If such a bandwagon exists, it is tiny and not densely peopled. I know. I'm on it. I understand why people want to write a forth. I did the same thing some years ago in rolling my own stack processor. But I learned from that exercise that it can be a *lot* of work with little to show. But many people aren't doing this to produce anything useful. They are doing it purely for the fun, which I get, I just don't share. I prefer to work on things that I think will be utilized. If that utilization is just myself, that's ok too, but better if it can be used by others. Mecrisp is gaining some ground. I see more and more mention of it in various sources. Personally I think Matthias is taking a bit of a left turn by pursuing the fully open source FPGA CPU development chain, but that's just my personal interest. I don't see FPGA CPUs gaining much ground in general. I can see then used in special apps however, so at some point I may dig in and work with that stuff myself. In the meantime I need to get my Microsemi board up and running. :) -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marcos Cruz <use_the_contact_page@programandala.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 17:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1ldkh$1nd$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #42918 |
En/Je/On 2015-10-28, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> escribió/skribis/wrote: > Ok, enjoy. At some point I expect you may get tired of reinventing the > wheel. Why not try working on something new instead of jumping on the > "I want to write my own forth" bandwagon. Because writing a Forth is a good learning experience on Forth? Because it's an intellectual challenge/pleasure? Because it's fun? Because sometimes Forth systems available for your specific platform are not good/practical/powerful/simple/complex/modern/small/big/fast/(non-)standard enough for certain application(s)/game(s)/tool(s) you want/need to write? Beside, writing your own Forth is compatible with writing programs in Forth -- in any Forth, even in your own Forth :) -- Marcos Cruz http://programandala.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 13:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1lebj$efb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #43312 |
On 11/7/2015 12:50 PM, Marcos Cruz wrote: > En/Je/On 2015-10-28, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> escribió/skribis/wrote: > >> Ok, enjoy. At some point I expect you may get tired of reinventing the >> wheel. Why not try working on something new instead of jumping on the >> "I want to write my own forth" bandwagon. > > Because writing a Forth is a good learning experience on Forth? Because > it's an intellectual challenge/pleasure? Because it's fun? Because > sometimes Forth systems available for your specific platform are not > good/practical/powerful/simple/complex/modern/small/big/fast/(non-)standard > enough for certain application(s)/game(s)/tool(s) you want/need to write? > > Beside, writing your own Forth is compatible with writing programs in > Forth -- in any Forth, even in your own Forth :) You couldn't have explained my thinking any better. Writing your own forth is not very different from writing applications in forth. The difference is that when you write your own forth, that is what you have, a starting point to write applications. When you write applications you have gone beyond just writing your own forth. I find it hard to picture a situation where you would be better off writing your own forth rather than modifying/extending one of the many excellent forths out there. I guess I'm just not so big on redoing the work that others have done, especially when they are so much better at it. To each his own. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 10:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87egg1wu31.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #43314 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > I find it hard to picture a situation where you would be better off > writing your own forth rather than modifying/extending one of the many > excellent forths out there. That is not always possible or practical, if the features you want aren't in any existing Forth and have to be baked in from the beginning, rather than added on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 08:29 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <ZcidnVC92b6A3qPLnZ2dnUU7-KWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #43316 |
On 11/7/15 8:19 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> I find it hard to picture a situation where you would be better off >> writing your own forth rather than modifying/extending one of the many >> excellent forths out there. > > That is not always possible or practical, if the features you want > aren't in any existing Forth and have to be baked in from the beginning, > rather than added on. > Such as? 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 | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 13:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <98e0122a-be88-4d6f-9d00-6aa97216f526@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #43319 |
On Saturday, November 7, 2015 at 11:29:50 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 11/7/15 8:19 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: > > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > >> I find it hard to picture a situation where you would be better off > >> writing your own forth rather than modifying/extending one of the many > >> excellent forths out there. > > > > That is not always possible or practical, if the features you want > > aren't in any existing Forth and have to be baked in from the beginning, > > rather than added on. > > > > Such as? Quotations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 13:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87a8qpwl3x.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #43319 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>> if the features you want aren't in any existing Forth and have to be
>> baked in from the beginning, rather than added on.
> Such as?
Each of these exists in at least one Forth, but I don't know of any
Forth that combines all of them:
1. Being written entirely in Forth with no external dependencies,
instead of booting from assembler.
2. Being able to choose the cell size at build time, or maybe even
run time.
3. Separating the compiler and interpreter/VM such as for a tethered
system.
4. All FOSS.
5. Multitasker with async i/o behind the scenes, and memory
isolation between tasks.
Maybe something like this could re-use parts of existing Forths but the
differences would be deep enough that it wouldn't really be "adding on".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-07 16:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1lqve$1fh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #43324 |
On 11/7/2015 4:33 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes: >>> if the features you want aren't in any existing Forth and have to be >>> baked in from the beginning, rather than added on. >> Such as? > > Each of these exists in at least one Forth, but I don't know of any > Forth that combines all of them: > > 1. Being written entirely in Forth with no external dependencies, > instead of booting from assembler. > > 2. Being able to choose the cell size at build time, or maybe even > run time. > > 3. Separating the compiler and interpreter/VM such as for a tethered > system. > > 4. All FOSS. > > 5. Multitasker with async i/o behind the scenes, and memory > isolation between tasks. > > Maybe something like this could re-use parts of existing Forths but the > differences would be deep enough that it wouldn't really be "adding on". I didn't say it couldn't happen, I said it was hard to imagine. For me, at least, this is still hard to imagine. I'm not at all clear on item 2. Can you explain that a bit more? How would this be useful much less important? I also don't see how you can achieve item 1 if you are going to support multiple CPUs. Can you explain that? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web