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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #50314 > unrolled thread

Hard Forth

Started bylehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com>
First post2016-08-21 01:04 -0700
Last post2016-09-16 09:45 -0500
Articles 5 on this page of 65 — 22 participants

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

Contents

  Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:04 -0700
    Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:12 -0700
      Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:17 -0700
        Re: Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:54 -0700
          Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 07:26 -0700
            Re: Hard Forth Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:07 +0200
          Re: Hard Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 17:37 -0400
            Re: Hard Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 14:51 -0700
        Re: Hard Forth lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:43 -0700
    Re: Hard Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:16 -0700
      Re: Hard Forth lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:20 -0700
        Re: Hard Forth julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2016-08-21 01:36 -0700
        Re: Hard Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 01:41 -0700
    Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-08-21 14:16 -0500
      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 13:50 -0700
        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 19:46 -0700
          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-21 22:29 -0500
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 07:03 +0300
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-21 23:13 -0500
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 07:18 +0300
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 22:08 -0700
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-08-22 00:55 -0500
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 23:27 -0700
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 06:00 -0400
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 23:30 -0700
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-22 00:04 -0700
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2016-08-23 16:11 +1000
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 23:45 -0700
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-08-21 21:42 -1000
          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:57 -0700
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 03:30 -0400
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 08:37 +0000
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2016-09-16 12:16 +0200
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 12:56 +0000
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 09:39 -0500
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 02:13 -0400
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 23:46 -0700
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-17 02:02 -0500
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 00:41 -0700
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:51 -0400
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 17:24 -0700
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-18 15:44 -0500
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-13 00:49 +0000
                        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-13 03:32 +0200
                        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 23:34 -0400
                        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-10-13 04:02 -0500
                          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-13 15:04 -0700
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 00:04 -0700
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] mhx@iae.nl - 2016-09-17 01:28 -0700
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 02:04 -0700
                      Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-17 15:38 +0000
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-17 10:20 -0500
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:52 -0400
                  Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-17 14:18 +0000
                    Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 17:22 -0700
        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-08-29 15:33 +0200
        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bruce Axtens <bruce.axtens@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:16 +0800
          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-09-16 10:29 -0700
        Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:54 -0700
          Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 03:03 -0500
            Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 01:19 -0700
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-09-16 08:32 +0000
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-09-16 13:15 +0200
                Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-13 01:05 +0000
              Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2016-09-16 09:45 -0500

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#51025 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

Fromlawrencedo99@gmail.com
Date2016-09-16 01:19 -0700
SubjectRe: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]
Message-ID<c53ff842-ec81-4ff6-abe3-c79839e75708@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#51024
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 8:03:17 PM UTC+12, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>> 
>> POSIX got rid of all that. So nowadays we can assume the existence
>> of a common, fairly simple 'stdio' layer on top of whatever the OS
>> or hardware might actually be doing. Any OS that cannot provide such
>> a thing simply isn't worth using any more.
> 
> Umm, what?  This is comp.lang.forth.  A brilliant language for small
> embedded systems.  An order of magnitude or two smaller than POSIX.
> It doesn't need to run on top of a heavyweight OS.

If you want to work at a lower level, then perhaps you are asking for a SATA interface word set? And then that won’t work with onboard SSDs, so you need an M2 word set. And what about USB-connected devices? So you want a USB word set? DMA channels? Dealing with PCI versus PCI-E versus whatever? Interrupt servicing?

Do you want to bother about such low-level details or not?

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

#51027 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

Fromanton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
Date2016-09-16 08:32 +0000
SubjectRe: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]
Message-ID<2016Sep16.103257@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
In reply to#51025
lawrencedo99@gmail.com writes:
>On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 8:03:17 PM UTC+12, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Umm, what?  This is comp.lang.forth.  A brilliant language for small
>> embedded systems.  An order of magnitude or two smaller than POSIX.
>> It doesn't need to run on top of a heavyweight OS.
>
>If you want to work at a lower level, then perhaps you are asking for a SAT=
>A interface word set? And then that won=E2=80=99t work with onboard SSDs, s=
>o you need an M2 word set. And what about USB-connected devices? So you wan=
>t a USB word set? DMA channels? Dealing with PCI versus PCI-E versus whatev=
>er? Interrupt servicing?

Systems with SATA, SSDs, M2, PCI, or PCI-E are not small embedded
systems; USB not sure.  For the big systems that have these things,
having a POSIX layer in between is fine, and Forth is also a cool
language for that (although there is more competition there).  For
small embedded systems like Arduinos, it seems to me that programmers
prefer to talk directly to the I/O hardware rather than through a
POSIX layer.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/

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

#51033 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

Fromalbert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst)
Date2016-09-16 13:15 +0200
SubjectRe: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]
Message-ID<nrgk8l$sg7$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
In reply to#51027
In article <2016Sep16.103257@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>lawrencedo99@gmail.com writes:
>>On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 8:03:17 PM UTC+12, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Umm, what?  This is comp.lang.forth.  A brilliant language for small
>>> embedded systems.  An order of magnitude or two smaller than POSIX.
>>> It doesn't need to run on top of a heavyweight OS.
>>
>>If you want to work at a lower level, then perhaps you are asking for a SAT=
>>A interface word set? And then that won=E2=80=99t work with onboard SSDs, s=
>>o you need an M2 word set. And what about USB-connected devices? So you wan=
>>t a USB word set? DMA channels? Dealing with PCI versus PCI-E versus whatev=
>>er? Interrupt servicing?
>
>Systems with SATA, SSDs, M2, PCI, or PCI-E are not small embedded
>systems; USB not sure.  For the big systems that have these things,
>having a POSIX layer in between is fine, and Forth is also a cool
>language for that (although there is more competition there).  For
>small embedded systems like Arduinos, it seems to me that programmers
>prefer to talk directly to the I/O hardware rather than through a
>POSIX layer.

It set me thinking. The first POSIX-like
thing is to have devices-as-a-file.
It is easy to come up with a nice interface for an adc.
1. devices are /dev/adc1 /dev/asc# as many as there are
2. "/dev/adc1" xxx OPEN-FILE would give a fd.
xx could be a resolution. All initialisation would be done for
you. If the resolution is not available, you get an error ior.
3. fd PAD 2 READ-FILE would get a value from the adc of 16 bits.

This is all very nice and portable, and doable, but in the
context of Arduinos noforth etc. nobody would even think of it.

Standardizing on INIT-ADC1 ADC1@
would however not be too far-fetched for Forth.
An important annoyance solved by this could be the
conflict if the adc port is in used for something else e.g. SPI.
In that case one would get a compile time error, which
would be nice (and ahead of the c development systems.).

In short : POSIX? No!

>
>- anton

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]

#51817 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

FromBernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de>
Date2016-10-13 01:05 +0000
SubjectRe: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]
Message-ID<ntmmld$qa9$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#51027
Am Fri, 16 Sep 2016 08:32:57 +0000 schrieb Anton Ertl:

> For small embedded systems like Arduinos, it seems to me that
> programmers prefer to talk directly to the I/O hardware rather than
> through a POSIX layer.

Apart from the register-based IO on embedded controllers, which are 
addressed by <regname> @ and ! (or maybe some other memory space if 
necessary), typical IO on controllers are serial interfaces, and those 
have an abstraction layer in Forth: TYPE, EMIT, and EMIT? for writing, 
KEY and KEY? for reading and checking for available data.

The @ and ! for these registers correspond more to ioctl on POSIX, and 
ioctl is far less well-defined as files and stdio.

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

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

#51038 — Re: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]

FromAndrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
Date2016-09-16 09:45 -0500
SubjectRe: Your definition of "Forth" is ...? - was [Re: Hard Forth]
Message-ID<EMqdnToVePrtmEHKnZ2dnUU7-Y2dnZ2d@supernews.com>
In reply to#51025
lawrencedo99@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 8:03:17 PM UTC+12, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
>>> 
>>> POSIX got rid of all that. So nowadays we can assume the existence
>>> of a common, fairly simple 'stdio' layer on top of whatever the OS
>>> or hardware might actually be doing. Any OS that cannot provide such
>>> a thing simply isn't worth using any more.
>> 
>> Umm, what?  This is comp.lang.forth.  A brilliant language for small
>> embedded systems.  An order of magnitude or two smaller than POSIX.
>> It doesn't need to run on top of a heavyweight OS.
> 
> If you want to work at a lower level, then perhaps you are asking
> for a SATA interface word set? And then that won't work with onboard
> SSDs, so you need an M2 word set. And what about USB-connected
> devices? So you want a USB word set? DMA channels? Dealing with PCI
> versus PCI-E versus whatever? Interrupt servicing?
> 
> Do you want to bother about such low-level details or not?

It depends on the hardware, which may or may not have such things.
Forth is an "any level" language, equally happy in small and large
systems.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

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

csiph-web