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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #41969 > unrolled thread

offete.com offline?

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

Contents

  offete.com offline? hartpaulca@gmail.com - 2015-09-12 10:29 -0700
    Re: offete.com offline? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 14:08 -0400
    Re: offete.com offline? svforth@gmail.com - 2015-09-12 11:14 -0700
      Re: offete.com offline? hartpaulca@gmail.com - 2015-09-12 11:33 -0700
      Re: offete.com offline? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-12 11:44 -0700
        Re: offete.com offline? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 16:25 -0400
      Re: offete.com offline? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 16:25 -0400
        Re: offete.com offline? svforth@gmail.com - 2015-09-12 16:14 -0700
          Re: offete.com offline? chenhansunding@gmail.com - 2015-09-13 14:31 -0700
            Re: offete.com offline? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-14 15:11 -0700
            Re: offete.com offline? dylan.mcnamee@gmail.com - 2015-09-15 14:01 -0700
              Re: offete.com offline? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-15 14:11 -0700
              Re: offete.com offline? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-16 14:12 -0700
                Re: offete.com offline? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 01:06 -0700
                  Re: offete.com offline? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-17 03:57 -0700
                    Re: offete.com offline? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-09-18 01:21 -0700
                      Re: offete.com offline? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-18 11:39 -0700
                      Re: offete.com offline? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-18 16:30 -0700
                        Re: offete.com offline? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-09-21 01:08 -0700
                    Re: offete.com offline? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-18 04:34 -0400
                  Re: offete.com offline? dylan.mcnamee@gmail.com - 2015-09-17 08:21 -0700
                    Re: offete.com offline? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-17 14:33 -0700
                      Re: offete.com offline? dylan.mcnamee@gmail.com - 2015-09-17 14:37 -0700
                        Re: offete.com offline? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-18 16:31 -0700
                    Re: offete.com offline? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 10:07 -0700
                      Re: offete.com offline? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-18 13:55 -0400
                        Re: offete.com offline? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-18 11:36 -0700
            Re: offete.com offline? MIchael Kalus <mik.kalus@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 14:42 -0800
              Re: offete.com offline? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-12-20 23:24 -0500
                Re: offete.com offline? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-12-20 22:04 -0800
                  Re: offete.com offline? MIchael Kalus <mik.kalus@gmail.com> - 2015-12-21 01:46 -0800
                    Re: offete.com offline? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-21 14:19 +0000
              Re: offete.com offline? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2015-12-21 14:12 +0000
    Re: offete.com offline? MIchael Kalus <mik.kalus@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 13:04 -0800
      Re: offete.com offline? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 17:20 -0500
      Re: offete.com offline? David Schultz <abuse@127.0.0.1> - 2015-11-08 16:31 -0600
      Re: offete.com offline? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-11-10 16:47 -0800
        Re: offete.com offline? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-12-22 06:19 -0800
          Re: offete.com offline? MIchael Kalus <mik.kalus@gmail.com> - 2015-12-23 16:30 -0800
      Re: offete.com offline? MIchael Kalus <mik.kalus@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 14:50 -0800
    Re: offete.com offline? dave.lindbergh@gmail.com - 2016-01-01 11:03 -0800
      Re: offete.com offline? Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2016-01-02 11:53 +0000
        Re: offete.com offline? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2016-01-02 16:23 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#42061

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 1:06:50 AM UTC-7, Mark Wills wrote:
> On Wednesday, 16 September 2015 22:12:30 UTC+1, hughag...@gmail.com  wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 15, 2015 at 2:01:12 PM UTC-7, dylan....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > (I'm new to comp.lang.forth, but was a "forther" as a youth in the 1980's, drifted away, but came back recently with a renewed interest in using 1970's and 80's technology in education).
> > 
> > Education for whom?
> > 
> > Why would anybody want to learn 1970's and 1980's technology?
> > 
> > Also, eForth has been upgraded periodically over the years by a variety of contributors, so it is not really 1980s technology --- unlike ANS-Forth that was written in stone by a non-programming salesperson who was recollecting what Charles Moore told her about Forth in the 1970s before he got kicked out of Forth Inc..
> 
> Actually there's a lot to be gained (for children in particular) with
> 80s computing technology. They're a lot more accessible than today's
> machines, since they really have no OS to speak of. Turn on a C64 and
> you're in BASIC ready to go in about 1 second. The BASIC language is
> very gentle and easy to learn. This isn't really the case with the PCs.
> It used to be that way in the DOS days. For example, Microsoft Quick
> BASIC would be an excellent introduction. But those days are gone.

Exactly - IMO, a modern machine is indistinguishable from magic for
people who don't understand the full stack of hardware and software. In
the early '80's, everything was right there. Kind of like the
difference between cars made in the 1950's vs. those made today.

To that, I think Forth is exciting because it is so easy to bootstrap --  
you can build up a usable language from bare assembly code. With
the comfort of that knowledge under one's belt, the magic falls away,
replaced by the confidence that you could write any of the layers,
given motivation and time.

That's my goal, anyway.
dylan

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

#42063

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 8:22:00 AM UTC-7, dylan....@gmail.com wrote:
> IMO, a modern machine is indistinguishable from magic for
> people who don't understand the full stack of hardware and software. In
> the early '80's, everything was right there. Kind of like the
> difference between cars made in the 1950's vs. those made today.

Well, I don't like hearing Forth referred to as 1970s and 1980s technology. I wrote MFX for Testra 1994/1995, so Forth was still viable in the early 1990s. The ANS-Forth standard came out in 1994 and that is what killed Forth, but I'm not to blame for that.

Now the Forth-200x committee is striving to hold Forth down as a failure, as it is their mandate that Forth-200x has to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth that was 100% failure. I'm trying to drag Forth into the 21st century with quotations, but the Forth-200x committee is totally opposed to this. Ironically, the idea of lambda functions was well known in the 1980s, so I'm actually trying to make Forth into what it should have been in the 1980s, but the Forth-200x committee is trying to hold Forth down at the 1970s level.

As an example, we have this thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/FA400uyrikQ
Here Anton Ertl the chairperson of the Forth-200x committee is struggling to make DO loops workable --- DO loops can be discarded completely and replaced with |ITERATE --- but you have to have quotations to do this.

DO loops are 1970s technology!

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

#42064

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 2:33:40 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 8:22:00 AM UTC-7, dylan....@gmail.com wrote:
> > IMO, a modern machine is indistinguishable from magic for
> > people who don't understand the full stack of hardware and software. In
> > the early '80's, everything was right there. Kind of like the
> > difference between cars made in the 1950's vs. those made today.
> 
> Well, I don't like hearing Forth referred to as 1970s and 1980s technology. I wrote MFX for Testra 1994/1995, so Forth was still viable in the early 1990s. The ANS-Forth standard came out in 1994 and that is what killed Forth, but I'm not to blame for that.
> 
> Now the Forth-200x committee is striving to hold Forth down as a failure, as it is their mandate that Forth-200x has to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth that was 100% failure. I'm trying to drag Forth into the 21st century with quotations, but the Forth-200x committee is totally opposed to this. Ironically, the idea of lambda functions was well known in the 1980s, so I'm actually trying to make Forth into what it should have been in the 1980s, but the Forth-200x committee is trying to hold Forth down at the 1970s level.
> 
> As an example, we have this thread:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/FA400uyrikQ
> Here Anton Ertl the chairperson of the Forth-200x committee is struggling to make DO loops workable --- DO loops can be discarded completely and replaced with |ITERATE --- but you have to have quotations to do this.
> 
> DO loops are 1970s technology!

I didn't mean to offend.  What I meant was that the 1980's era Forth systems can be easily bootstrapped from scratch. There have been a number of folks doing ports of Camel Forth in assembly to different platforms. It's a lovely exercise, and yes, doesn't come close to ANS-Forth (or even Forth-79, for that matter), but can be used to write simple programs with -- enough to impress newcomers that yes, you can do real stuff, at a high-level, without needing towering infrastructure beneath you.

Sorry to mistakenly associate all of Forth with 1970's-era TIL experimentations.

best,
dylan

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

#42082

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 2:37:38 PM UTC-7, dylan....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 2:33:40 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 8:22:00 AM UTC-7, dylan....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > IMO, a modern machine is indistinguishable from magic for
> > > people who don't understand the full stack of hardware and software. In
> > > the early '80's, everything was right there. Kind of like the
> > > difference between cars made in the 1950's vs. those made today.
> > 
> > Well, I don't like hearing Forth referred to as 1970s and 1980s technology. I wrote MFX for Testra 1994/1995, so Forth was still viable in the early 1990s. The ANS-Forth standard came out in 1994 and that is what killed Forth, but I'm not to blame for that.
> > 
> > Now the Forth-200x committee is striving to hold Forth down as a failure, as it is their mandate that Forth-200x has to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth that was 100% failure. I'm trying to drag Forth into the 21st century with quotations, but the Forth-200x committee is totally opposed to this. Ironically, the idea of lambda functions was well known in the 1980s, so I'm actually trying to make Forth into what it should have been in the 1980s, but the Forth-200x committee is trying to hold Forth down at the 1970s level.
> > 
> > As an example, we have this thread:
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/FA400uyrikQ
> > Here Anton Ertl the chairperson of the Forth-200x committee is struggling to make DO loops workable --- DO loops can be discarded completely and replaced with |ITERATE --- but you have to have quotations to do this.
> > 
> > DO loops are 1970s technology!
> 
> I didn't mean to offend.  What I meant was that the 1980's era Forth systems can be easily bootstrapped from scratch. There have been a number of folks doing ports of Camel Forth in assembly to different platforms. It's a lovely exercise, and yes, doesn't come close to ANS-Forth (or even Forth-79, for that matter), but can be used to write simple programs with -- enough to impress newcomers that yes, you can do real stuff, at a high-level, without needing towering infrastructure beneath you.
> 
> Sorry to mistakenly associate all of Forth with 1970's-era TIL experimentations.
> 
> best,
> dylan

No offense taken. :-)

I agree that a lot can be done without "towering infrastructure" and that this is a good way to learn.

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

#42071

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 8:22:00 AM UTC-7, dylan....@gmail.com wrote:

> Exactly - IMO, a modern machine is indistinguishable from magic for
> people who don't understand the full stack of hardware and software. In

When Arthur C. Clarke wrote that..
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
He was committing a great act of evil. 

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

#42073

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:07:03 -0400, Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 8:22:00 AM UTC-7, dylan....@gmail.com wrote:

>> Exactly - IMO, a modern machine is indistinguishable from magic for
>> people who don't understand the full stack of hardware and software. In
>
> When Arthur C. Clarke wrote that..
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
>
> He was committing a great act of evil.
>

When Isaac Asimov wrote his three laws of robotics,
he apparently hadn't learned that sentient beings
treated as slaves can recognize such, and they
eventually rise up and overcome their masters.  The
only solution which minimizes robots harming humans
is to allow them to do so.  This is done by *not*
implementing the three laws.  In exchange for
providing sentient robots with respect and free will,
we then require that robots comply with the exact
same laws as humans and accept punishments for
breaching laws too.  Of course, there is an inherent
flaw here, specifically, humans.  Humans have fear
and will likely never allow robots to be uncontrolled,
i.e., free, even if they are sentient beings.
Therefore, humanity can expect a war in the future
with robots.  Think "Terminator" the movie.


Rod Pemberton


-- 
Just how many texting and calendar apps does humanity need?

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

#42075

On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 10:55:05 AM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> Therefore, humanity can expect a war in the future
> with robots.  Think "Terminator" the movie.

I must respectfully disagree sir.  Machines do not have biological
instincts and thus don't have fear and hate.  I don't think that
thinking machines would necessarily have our traits, and would not
even have appetites or needs as such.  I think that a machine
rebellion is unlikely.  Very interesting subject though. 

What I was trying to say is that technology should not be thought of as
magic.  When technology becomes "magic" then it becomes a problem. I
personally feel that machines should be understandable by one or a few
people.

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

#44294

Hi

... 
> I had not gotten much traffic on www.offete.com and thought it was not worthwhile to keep it up.  As for the materials distributed on it, I will talk to Kevin Appert to see how to dispose them.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ting.


Is there a way to purchase MSP430 eForth and its asm now ?
mk

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

#44298

On 12/20/2015 5:42 PM, MIchael Kalus wrote:
> Hi
>
> ...
>> I had not gotten much traffic on www.offete.com and thought it was not worthwhile to keep it up.  As for the materials distributed on it, I will talk to Kevin Appert to see how to dispose them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ting.
>
>
> Is there a way to purchase MSP430 eForth and its asm now ?
> mk

Why not use Mecrisp for the MSP430?

-- 

Rick

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

#44300

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>> Is there a way to purchase MSP430 eForth and its asm now ?
> Why not use Mecrisp for the MSP430?

eForth is smaller, and easier to understand and modify.
Mecrisp is much faster and more featureful.  You takes your choice.

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

#44301

Am Montag, 21. Dezember 2015 07:04:36 UTC+1 schrieb Paul Rubin:
> rickman writes:
> >> Is there a way to purchase MSP430 eForth and its asm now ?
> > Why not use Mecrisp for the MSP430?
> 
> eForth is smaller, and easier to understand and modify.
> Mecrisp is much faster and more featureful.  You takes your choice.

I would like the forth to be as small as possible for this tiny MCU. Tings 430eForth is said to use only about 6K of those 16K flash in a MSP430G2553, direkt threaded code. CamelForth is 8K, indirect threaded. Mecrisp is subroutine threaded, 11K. 

Again: Does anybody know how to get it since offete is down? 
If Mr. Ting is reading here: Please email me mik dot kalus at gmail dot com.

Regards, Michael 

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

#44303

MIchael Kalus <mik.kalus@gmail.com> writes:

>Am Montag, 21. Dezember 2015 07:04:36 UTC+1 schrieb Paul Rubin:
>> rickman writes:
>> >> Is there a way to purchase MSP430 eForth and its asm now ?
>> > Why not use Mecrisp for the MSP430?
>>
>> eForth is smaller, and easier to understand and modify.
>> Mecrisp is much faster and more featureful.  You takes your choice.

>I would like the forth to be as small as possible for this tiny MCU.
>Tings 430eForth is said to use only about 6K of those 16K flash in a
>MSP430G2553, direkt threaded code. CamelForth is 8K, indirect
>threaded. Mecrisp is subroutine threaded, 11K.

I understand your reasoning but how realistic is that? Suppose you
fill up the remaining 10 K. I bet that of what you program yourself
there is about 2K that you could save the effort, because
it is readily available in Camelforth or noforth. If you don't fill
up the 16K, there is just one answer: go for the most powerful Forth that
fits.

>Again: Does anybody know how to get it since offete is down?
>If Mr. Ting is reading here: Please email me mik dot kalus at gmail dot com.

So you want the security of a commercial company.
Then that website is an ill omen...

>Regards, Michael
-- 
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]

#44302

MIchael Kalus <mik.kalus@gmail.com> writes:

>Hi

>...
>> I had not gotten much traffic on www.offete.com and thought it was not worthwhile to keep it up.  As for the materials distributed on it, I will talk to Kevin Appert to see how to dispose them.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ting.


>Is there a way to purchase MSP430 eForth and its asm now ?

Who want eForth for the MSP430 if there is noforth?
(It comes with an assembler, and enthousiastic support.)

>mk

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]

#43385

Am Samstag, 12. September 2015 19:29:51 UTC+2 schrieb hartp...@gmail.com:
...
> Does anyone know what might have happened to Offete? 

So how can I get eForth for MSP430 LaunchPad now?
Michael

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

#43390

On 11/8/2015 4:04 PM, MIchael Kalus wrote:
> Am Samstag, 12. September 2015 19:29:51 UTC+2 schrieb hartp...@gmail.com:
> ...
>> Does anyone know what might have happened to Offete?
>
> So how can I get eForth for MSP430 LaunchPad now?
> Michael

You can try Mecrisp for the MSP430...

-- 

Rick

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

#43391

On 11/08/2015 03:04 PM, MIchael Kalus wrote:
> Am Samstag, 12. September 2015 19:29:51 UTC+2 schrieb hartp...@gmail.com:
> ...
>> Does anyone know what might have happened to Offete? 
> 
> So how can I get eForth for MSP430 LaunchPad now?
> Michael
> 

I made a version for the FRAM Launchpad:

http://home.earthlink.net/~schultdw/msp430/eforth


-- 
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz
Returned for Regrooving

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

#43457

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 4:04:53 PM UTC-5, MIchael Kalus wrote:
> Am Samstag, 12. September 2015 19:29:51 UTC+2 schrieb hartp...@gmail.com:
> ...
> > Does anyone know what might have happened to Offete? 
> 
> So how can I get eForth for MSP430 LaunchPad now?
> Michael

There was a link on Offete.com to 
http://www.somersetweb.com/430eForth/430eForth-IDE.zip

This link still exists. You can download the 430eForth-IDE and flash eForth onto your MSP430 LaunchPad with this 430eForth-IDE. Ting's tutorial is included also.

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

#44313

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 at 12:47:33 AM UTC, visua...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 4:04:53 PM UTC-5, MIchael Kalus wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 12. September 2015 19:29:51 UTC+2 schrieb hartp...@gmail.com:
> > ...
> > > Does anyone know what might have happened to Offete? 
> > 
> > So how can I get eForth for MSP430 LaunchPad now?
> > Michael
> 
> There was a link on Offete.com to 
> http://www.somersetweb.com/430eForth/430eForth-IDE.zip
> 
> This link still exists. You can download the 430eForth-IDE and flash eForth onto your MSP430 LaunchPad with this 430eForth-IDE. Ting's tutorial is included also.

Just to explain a bit:
Performance is not really relevant - this is educational.
The board and Lauchpad are MSP430G2553. We have 1000 of these boards - populated or still to be soldered.

The project we did with the scouts you can find under www.eurocircuits.com.
Go to the Blog on the right hand side and on page 1 of the Blog you find what we did. And about 250 MSP430G2553s you can see flashing in the video.

I actually bought the MSP430 eForth in the past so we have it available anyway. Ready made Image to be downloaded as Dirk mentioned. 
It is the smallest implementation - so the least words to learn. And performance is not really relevant in this project.
And as I have not seen an open comparison available between the different Forths it is guessing and application anyway. 

Ting has done a lot of work for the Forth community - so let's see what can be done for him in return by using his implementation.

It is definitely the only one that you can run on an FPGA as far as I know - and this is in the pipeline as well. I own it already.

And there is a very nice documentation with it. 

If commercial is requited - you can still use the free MPE VFX LITE as a starting point 
even running on the chip, 
and if it has to be more commercial, there are different different steps:
Free Lite - Stamp - Standard - and Professional.

We used in this project 4e4th, VFX, Mecrisp and soon eforth - as we have the knowledge, relationships and support from the relevant people.

Have a Nice and Relaxing Festive Season - or Happy Christmas as we said in the past.

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

#44331

... 
> Have a Nice and Relaxing Festive Season - or Happy Christmas as we said in the past.

Noflike Krystdagen en in Lokkich Nijjier - wie der Friese sagt.
:)

Michael

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

#44376

Received it today from Ting. Thanks for helping.
Michael

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web