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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #42204 > unrolled thread

New to the group

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

Contents

  New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 15:17 -0700
    Re: New to the group mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-09-26 17:35 -0700
    Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-26 21:16 -0700
      Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 07:27 -0700
        Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 14:43 -0400
          Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 13:05 -0700
          Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-27 12:57 -1000
          Re: New to the group Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-27 17:00 -0700
            Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-27 17:16 -0700
              Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 20:31 -0400
              Re: New to the group jfong@ms4.hinet.net - 2015-09-27 18:57 -0700
                Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-27 19:37 -0700
                  Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 20:53 -0700
                    Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-27 19:02 -1000
                      Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-27 23:33 -0700
                        Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 04:51 -0700
                          Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 12:39 -0400
                    Re: New to the group Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-09-28 14:29 +0200
                      Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 07:18 -0700
                        Re: New to the group foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2015-09-28 08:07 -0700
                        Re: New to the group Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-09-28 17:23 +0200
                          Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 11:16 -0700
                            Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 14:25 -0400
                              Re: New to the group anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-29 09:05 +0000
                            Re: New to the group Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-09-28 20:31 +0200
                              Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 13:20 -0700
                                Re: New to the group Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-09-28 22:52 +0200
                                  Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 16:40 -0700
                        Re: New to the group Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 08:41 -0700
                        Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-28 11:41 -1000
                          Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-28 21:33 -0700
                      Re: New to the group jfong@ms4.hinet.net - 2015-09-28 19:13 -0700
                        Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 00:51 -0400
                          Re: New to the group jfong@ms4.hinet.net - 2015-09-29 18:26 -0700
                            Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 21:55 -0400
                            Re: New to the group Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-09-30 08:29 +0100
                          Re: New to the group jfong@ms4.hinet.net - 2015-09-29 18:52 -0700
                      Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-29 00:29 -0700
                        Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 04:40 -0700
                          Re: New to the group Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 05:24 -0700
                          Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 07:33 -0700
                            Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-29 14:11 -0700
                      Re: New to the group "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-29 16:46 +0000
                        Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-29 14:15 -0700
                          Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 17:34 -0400
                      Re: New to the group "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-30 00:07 +0000
      Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 10:54 -0700
    Re: New to the group Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-26 22:37 -0700
      Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 10:51 -0700
    Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 17:15 -0700
      Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 21:58 -0400
        Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 22:03 -0700
          Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-29 21:32 -1000
            Re: New to the group Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-09-30 09:06 +0100
              Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-30 08:58 -1000
                Re: New to the group Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 23:55 -0700
                  Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-30 21:28 -1000
                  Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 08:25 -0400
                  Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-01 09:33 -0700
              Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-30 16:21 -0700
                Re: New to the group "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-30 21:03 -0400
                  Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-30 19:34 -1000
                    Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-30 23:47 -0700
                      Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 08:31 -0400
                        Re: New to the group "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-02 00:30 -0400
                          Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-01 19:22 -1000
                            Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-01 23:52 -0700
                          Re: New to the group Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 01:52 -0700
                            Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-02 08:36 -1000
                            Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 17:00 -0400
                              Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 14:46 -0700
                                Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 18:10 -0400
                                Re: New to the group Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-02 16:08 -0700
                                  Re: New to the group "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-02 20:44 -0400
                                    Re: New to the group David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-10-31 06:54 -0400
                                      Re: New to the group "Rod Pemberton" <too@zxcvfeqad.cdm> - 2015-11-02 02:34 -0500
                                        Re: New to the group David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-12-22 06:45 -0500
                                      Re: New to the group "Rod Pemberton" <too@zxcvfeqad.cdm> - 2015-11-02 02:34 -0500
                                  Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-02 15:16 -1000
                                    Re: New to the group Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-02 18:21 -0700
                                      Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-02 15:38 -1000
                                    Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 22:13 -0400
                                      Re: New to the group Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-10-03 22:24 +0100
                                        Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:33 -0400
            Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-30 17:00 -0700
              Re: New to the group "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-30 20:38 -0400
              Re: New to the group Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-02 14:37 -0400
                Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 17:01 -0400
                Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-02 23:35 -0700
          Re: New to the group "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-30 18:11 -0400
            Re: New to the group Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-10-01 02:13 +0200
      Re: New to the group Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-09-30 08:38 +0100
        Re: New to the group Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-09-30 10:58 -0400
    Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 06:04 -0700
      Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 09:46 -0400
      Re: New to the group anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 06:07 +0000
        Re: New to the group Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 04:04 -0700
          Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 10:29 -0400
          Re: New to the group anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-09 15:30 +0000
    Re: New to the group lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 00:19 -0700
      Re: New to the group visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-10-03 17:01 -0700
      Re: New to the group anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 06:38 +0000
        Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-07 21:15 -1000
          Minimal wordset (was: New to the group) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 13:39 +0000
            Re: Minimal wordset (was: New to the group) JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-08 08:13 -0700
              Re: Minimal wordset (was: New to the group) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 00:55 -0700
                Re: Minimal wordset Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-10-09 10:43 +0200
                  Re: Minimal wordset Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 06:56 -0700
                    Re: Minimal wordset Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-10-09 19:44 +0200
                      Re: Minimal wordset Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-09 14:02 -0700
                        Re: Minimal wordset Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-10-10 09:44 +0100
                        Re: Minimal wordset anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-10 11:36 +0000
                  Re: Minimal wordset lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 08:40 -0700
                    Re: Minimal wordset Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-10-09 19:53 +0200
                      Re: Minimal wordset lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 11:22 -0700
                        Re: Minimal wordset JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-09 11:33 -0700
                        Re: Minimal wordset Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-10-09 20:38 +0200
                        Re: Minimal wordset stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-10-09 20:56 +0000
                          Re: Minimal wordset rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 20:10 -0500
                            Re: Minimal wordset Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-11-02 03:05 +0100
                            Re: Minimal wordset "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-01 16:08 -1000
                            Re: Minimal wordset stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-02 09:35 +0000
                              Re: Minimal wordset anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 12:42 +0000
                                Re: Minimal wordset humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 23:22 -0800
                              Re: Minimal wordset rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 11:25 -0500
                                Re: Minimal wordset stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-03 19:36 +0000
                              Re: Minimal wordset "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-11-08 12:56 +1100
                                Re: Minimal wordset stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-08 16:14 +0000
                                  Re: Minimal wordset "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-11-09 11:55 +1100
                            Re: Minimal wordset anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 09:41 +0000
                              Re: Minimal wordset rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 11:29 -0500
                                Re: Minimal wordset anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-03 17:01 +0000
                  Re: Minimal wordset JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-09 11:27 -0700
              Re: Minimal wordset (was: New to the group) "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-09 23:11 -0400
                Re: Minimal wordset (was: New to the group) Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-10-10 08:38 +0100
        Re: New to the group dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-10-14 23:14 +0000
          Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-14 16:21 -1000
          Re: New to the group anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-15 08:46 +0000
    Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:23 -0700
      Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-03 09:19 -1000
    Re: New to the group lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 05:24 -0700
      Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-08 08:22 -1000
        Re: New to the group lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 08:37 -0700
    Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 10:44 -0700

Page 1 of 8  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#42204 — New to the group

Hi ... I am new to the group, but not to programming. My first PC was a Commodore 64 (6502 CPU), back in the mid 1980s, and I implemented a FORTH-based macro assembler on that as a learning experience. I also wrote a terminal emulator in FORTH for 8086 DOS computers. Since then, pretty much all of my programming has been in C/C++. 

Anyway, I recently started thinking about robotics and AI and how FORTH is uniquely positioned to be able to learn new tasks and terms. So 30 years later ... I'm back!

Being a programmer, I started by writing my own flavor of FORTH in C++ (using VS 2013) that gives me a starting point. It implements a very simple FORTH virtual machine with only 30 primitive instructions and a few C++ methods that implement the VM. Everything else bootstraps from that.

Anyone interested in it is welcome to peruse the code, which is hosted on GitHub (http://github.com/CCurl/FORTH). I am actively working on it currently.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#42205

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 3:18:01 PM UTC-7, Chris Curl wrote:
> [...] I recently started thinking about robotics and AI [...]
> http://github.com/CCurl/FORTH [...]

Welcome to the premier Usenet AI & robotics group. 

Bye for now.

Arthur T. Murray/Mentifex
-- 
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007ZI66FS 
http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind.Forth 
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=307824.307853 
http://aihub.net/artificial-intelligence-lab-projects 

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

#42207

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 3:18:01 PM UTC-7, Chris Curl wrote:
> Hi ... I am new to the group, but not to programming. My first PC was a Commodore 64 (6502 CPU), back in the mid 1980s, and I implemented a FORTH-based macro assembler on that as a learning experience. I also wrote a terminal emulator in FORTH for 8086 DOS computers. Since then, pretty much all of my programming has been in C/C++. 
> 
> Anyway, I recently started thinking about robotics and AI and how FORTH is uniquely positioned to be able to learn new tasks and terms. So 30 years later ... I'm back!
> 
> Being a programmer, I started by writing my own flavor of FORTH in C++ (using VS 2013) that gives me a starting point. It implements a very simple FORTH virtual machine with only 30 primitive instructions and a few C++ methods that implement the VM. Everything else bootstraps from that.
> 
> Anyone interested in it is welcome to peruse the code, which is hosted on GitHub (http://github.com/CCurl/FORTH). I am actively working on it currently.

If you are interested in application programming in Forth, then you can use my novice package: http://www.forth.org/novice.html

You seem to not be interested in application programming however, but are instead interested in writing a Forth interpreter in C --- these are mutually exclusive interests.

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

#42210

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 12:16:40 AM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> You seem to not be interested in application programming however, but are instead interested in writing a Forth interpreter in C --- these are mutually exclusive interests.
I have many interests :). My main interest is satisfying my intellectual curiosity.

Last night, I read about Charles Moore, his philosophy, and the evolution of Forth. For him, building the tool was part of building the application. I guess I'm sort of like him, at least in that way.

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

#42215

On 9/27/2015 10:27 AM, Chris Curl wrote:
> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 12:16:40 AM UTC-4,
> hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>> You seem to not be interested in application programming however,
>> but are instead interested in writing a Forth interpreter in C ---
>> these are mutually exclusive interests.
> I have many interests :). My main interest is satisfying my
> intellectual curiosity.
>
> Last night, I read about Charles Moore, his philosophy, and the
> evolution of Forth. For him, building the tool was part of building
> the application. I guess I'm sort of like him, at least in that way.

I have read some about Chuck, but I can't say I've ever found a clear 
summary of his philosophy.  What did you find?

The tools *are* part of the application.  When I write VHDL code I have 
to spend as much time with the test bench as I do the application code. 
  When I design a board I have to develop a way to test it, both in 
debug and in production.

The thing being built needs an ecosystem.

-- 

Rick

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

#42216

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 2:43:26 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
> I have read some about Chuck, but I can't say I've ever found a clear 
> summary of his philosophy.  What did you find?

What I read was here, on the right of the page.
http://www.forth.com/resources/evolution/index.html

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

#42217

On 9/27/15 8:43 AM, rickman wrote:
> On 9/27/2015 10:27 AM, Chris Curl wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 12:16:40 AM UTC-4,
>> hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> You seem to not be interested in application programming however,
>>> but are instead interested in writing a Forth interpreter in C ---
>>> these are mutually exclusive interests.
>> I have many interests :). My main interest is satisfying my
>> intellectual curiosity.
>>
>> Last night, I read about Charles Moore, his philosophy, and the
>> evolution of Forth. For him, building the tool was part of building
>> the application. I guess I'm sort of like him, at least in that way.
>
> I have read some about Chuck, but I can't say I've ever found a clear
> summary of his philosophy.  What did you find?
>
> The tools *are* part of the application.  When I write VHDL code I have
> to spend as much time with the test bench as I do the application code.
>   When I design a board I have to develop a way to test it, both in
> debug and in production.
>
> The thing being built needs an ecosystem.

This may help: The Evolution of Forth
http://www.forth.com/resources/evolution/index.html
Presented at the ACM SIGPLAN History of Programming Languages Conference 
(HOPL II, April, 1993). Published in ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Volume 28, No. 
3 March 1993.

As conceived, Forth *is* an ecosystem. For most of the first couple of 
decades, Forth on a mini- or micro-computer provided everything as a 
standalone environment: multitasking OS, editor, compiler, assembler, 
and growing application.

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]

#42218

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> I have read some about Chuck, but I can't say I've ever found a clear
> summary of his philosophy.  What did you find?

http://www.ultratechnology.com/1xforth.htm

is interesting.  Talking of Forth cpus:

    The goal was very simple: to minimize the complexity of the hardware
    software combination. As far as I can see no-one else is doing
    that. Some lip service perhaps, but no-one is trying to minimize the
    complexity of anything and that is a great concern to me.
    ...
    Forth doesn't need to be complicated. Classic Forth started out
    simple, it gradually accreted layers of complexity. At Forth
    Inc. that kind of became the company culture. We had this package
    and we were selling it and we were exploiting it and we were stuck
    with it. When I left Forth Inc. I had a chance to simplify and
    cmForth was the result. Unfortunately cmForth didn't get used for a
    lot of applications. So it is hard to tell how well it would have
    worked out.
    ...
    About a thousand instructions seems about right to me to do about
    anything. To paraphrase the old legend that any program with a
    thousand instructions can be written in one less. All programs
    should be a thousand instructions long.

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

#42219

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 5:00:27 PM UTC-7, Paul Rubin wrote:
> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
> > I have read some about Chuck, but I can't say I've ever found a clear
> > summary of his philosophy.  What did you find?
> 
> http://www.ultratechnology.com/1xforth.htm
> 
> is interesting.  Talking of Forth cpus:
> 
>     The goal was very simple: to minimize the complexity of the hardware
>     software combination. As far as I can see no-one else is doing
>     that. Some lip service perhaps, but no-one is trying to minimize the
>     complexity of anything and that is a great concern to me.

The MiniForth was built on a Lattice isp1048 PLD --- I've never heard of anybody else building any kind of processor on a PLD --- that was in 1994.

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

#42220

On 9/27/2015 8:16 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 5:00:27 PM UTC-7, Paul Rubin wrote:
>> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I have read some about Chuck, but I can't say I've ever found a clear
>>> summary of his philosophy.  What did you find?
>>
>> http://www.ultratechnology.com/1xforth.htm
>>
>> is interesting.  Talking of Forth cpus:
>>
>>      The goal was very simple: to minimize the complexity of the hardware
>>      software combination. As far as I can see no-one else is doing
>>      that. Some lip service perhaps, but no-one is trying to minimize the
>>      complexity of anything and that is a great concern to me.
>
> The MiniForth was built on a Lattice isp1048 PLD --- I've never heard of anybody else building any kind of processor on a PLD --- that was in 1994.

It has been done.  You obviously don't run in the hardware circles.

BTW, you need to call them CPLDs.  To most people PLDs are a generic 
term for *all* programmable logic devices.  The really small parts are 
most commonly called PALs or GALs and the remaining group is called 
FPGAs which I assume is what you intended to distinguish the isp1048 from.

Designing a useful processor in such a small device is an accomplishment 
for sure.  But it is one of those accomplishments that go in the books 
next to cramming the most college sophomores into a telephone booth 
really as it is only a useful accomplishment for a short time until much 
more capable devices become quite affordable.  These days you can get a 
1024 LUT FPGA for under $3 which is likely much lower power than the 
isp1048 and includes memory, etc.

-- 

Rick

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

#42221

> The MiniForth was built on a Lattice isp1048 PLD --- I've never heard of anybody else building any kind of processor on a PLD --- that was in 1994.

That's amazing! To squeeze a Forth CPU into a CPLD with only 48 GLBs is really something, not to mention this isp1000 series has limited routing resources. Cool!

--Jach

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

#42222

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 6:57:46 PM UTC-7, jf...@ms4.hinet.net wrote:
> > The MiniForth was built on a Lattice isp1048 PLD --- I've never heard of anybody else building any kind of processor on a PLD --- that was in 1994.
> 
> That's amazing! To squeeze a Forth CPU into a CPLD with only 48 GLBs is really something, not to mention this isp1000 series has limited routing resources. Cool!
> 
> --Jach

Well, I didn't do it personally --- I don't actually know anything about electronic hardware --- all I did was write MFX (cross-compiler, assembler and simulator).

I remember that routing was a big problem. Small seemingly trivial changes in the design would cause it to not route anymore. Getting it to route was largely done by guess and by golly --- routing is an intractable problem --- there is no algorithmic solution.

The MiniForth actually fit on a isp1032, but when you did that there was no I/O at all. As a practical matter, the isp1048 was needed. It has been upgraded to an FPGA since then and the name changed to RACE, so it is several times faster and has several times less power-consumption. Testra no longer uses their own HDL that they wrote in Forth, but they have switched to VHDL instead.

It doesn't really matter very much. In 1995 when the MiniForth went into production, everybody was talking about the new ANS-Forth standard, and what they were saying was: "Goodbye!" After ANS-Forth came out, the Forth community collapsed --- everybody just switched to C (Open Boot switched to C in 1995, which was a huge blow to the Forth community) --- nobody was interested in Forth anymore.

If the MiniForth had come out just one year earlier, before ANS-Forth became the standard, the MiniForth could have saved the Forth language from extinction. People would have had a Forth processor that was competitive in the real world (the MiniForth was competitive against the MC68000 that the competition in the laser-etching field were using). As it was, ANS-Forth made incompetence the new "Standard" and everybody abandoned Forth --- my MFX was non-standard, so it was just an also-ran. C programmers could dismiss my work off-hand by saying: "If MFX is so wonderful, why isn't it the Standard with a capital 'S'? Your own Forth community has indicted you!"

ANS-Forth was like that meteor that killed off the dinosaurs, except that instead of a big rock, it was a gigantic turd that landed on our heads --- now we have Forth-200x that is mandated to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth --- more of the same!

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

#42223

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 10:37:26 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> ANS-Forth was like that meteor that killed off the dinosaurs, except that instead of a big rock, it was a gigantic turd that landed on our heads --- now we have Forth-200x that is mandated to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth --- more of the same!
Great insight. Here we had a truly unique thing that could morph into anything, and change the trajectory of programming. And they killed it because they wanted to control it. What a shame.

Suffice to say that my implementation will be what I want it to be, not what some committee decrees.

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

#42224

On 9/27/15 5:53 PM, Chris Curl wrote:
> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 10:37:26 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>> ANS-Forth was like that meteor that killed off the dinosaurs, except that instead of a big rock, it was a gigantic turd that landed on our heads --- now we have Forth-200x that is mandated to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth --- more of the same!
> Great insight. Here we had a truly unique thing that could morph into anything, and change the trajectory of programming. And they killed it because they wanted to control it. What a shame.
>
> Suffice to say that my implementation will be what I want it to be, not what some committee decrees.
>

The reports of Forth's death are wildly exaggerated, especially by Hugh.

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]

#42226

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 10:02:21 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 9/27/15 5:53 PM, Chris Curl wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 10:37:26 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> ANS-Forth was like that meteor that killed off the dinosaurs, except that instead of a big rock, it was a gigantic turd that landed on our heads --- now we have Forth-200x that is mandated to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth --- more of the same!
> > Great insight. Here we had a truly unique thing that could morph into anything, and change the trajectory of programming. And they killed it because they wanted to control it. What a shame.
> >
> > Suffice to say that my implementation will be what I want it to be, not what some committee decrees.
> >
> 
> The reports of Forth's death are wildly exaggerated, especially by Hugh.
> 
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth

Well, Testra has spent the last 20 years selling motion-control boards based on the RACE processor. AFAIK however, MFX has never been used outside of Testra and the only program that was ever written in it was the motion-control program.

Nobody wants to touch Forth because ANS-Forth is the Standard (with a capital 'S') and ANS-Forth is really no good for anything.

Actually, the ANS-Forth document could be good as the lyrics in a song. Consider section 3.2.3.2:

"The control-flow stack may, but need not, physically exist in an implementation. If it does exist, it may be, but need not be, implemented using the data stack. The format of the control-flow stack is implementation defined. Since the control-flow stack may be implemented using the data stack, items placed on the data stack are unavailable to a program after items are placed on the control-flow stack and remain unavailable until the control-flow stack items are removed."

If you put words like this to music, you might have something salable! Do you play the banjo? 

ANS-Forth was just a marketing gimmick intended to convince the world that Forth Inc. sets the standard for the entire Forth community. ANS-Forth was pushed through to ANSI in 1994 without ever being tested. It couldn't be tested in 1994, because there was no ANS-Forth compiler available until 1997. This was SwiftForth, and it was too bug-ridden to be usable. Up through version-2, SwiftForth would crash every time that (LOCAL) was used --- this bug didn't get fixed until version-3 --- but Elizabeth Rather refuses to provide version-3 to the poor fools (me, for example) who paid over $400 for version-2. For Elizabeth Rather, it is all about the money, and scamming customers is just something that she does every day.

In the 1980s Forth was a big pond. There were a lot of Forth programmers, and Forth was considered to be more promising than C as the language of personal-computers. In those days, C was associated entirely with Unix($$$), but there were already several versions of Forth available for every personal-computer. Elizabeth Rather couldn't accept being a small fish in a big pond though --- she wanted Forth Inc. to be a big fish in a small pond --- all that she cared about was pushing ANS-Forth through ANSI so that Forth Inc. would appear to be the leader of the Forth community, but when she was done there was no Forth community remaining.

She has spent the last 20 years presenting herself as the "leading expert" on Forth. On the Forth Inc. website she describes herself like this:

"Elizabeth Rather is the co-founder of FORTH, Inc. and is a leading expert in the Forth programming language. Elizabeth was a colleague of Chuck Moore back when he worked at NRAO in the early 1970s. During his development of Forth, she became the second ever Forth programmer. Since then, she has become a leading expert in the language and one of its main proponents. Elizabeth was the chair of the ANSI Technical Committee that produced the ANSI Standard for Forth (1994).  She is an author of several books on Forth and gives regular training seminars on its usage."

Recently she said this:

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> Here's [an array definer] presented in my Forth Application Techniques that I think is
> far more useful than the FSL version:
>
> : ARRAY ( n -- )   CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT
>     DOES> ( n -- a)   SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER
>        1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" CELLS + ;

Well, Chris, if you have at least one week of experience programming in Forth, you should be able to point out most of the problems with Elizabeth Rather's code. The point that I'm making, is that Elizabeth Rather is not a Forth programmer --- she has never written a Forth program in her life --- she knows as much about technology as any salesperson does, which is nothing.

You should be able to easily write a better array definer than Elizabeth Rather is capable of writing. But it is a waste of time anyway! As a newbie, you should be focusing your mind on writing application programs. Writing low-level code such as an array definer is boring --- if you are going to succeed as a Forth programmer, you have to succeed at writing application programs (even getting a simple program to work is a huge confidence builder for a newbie) --- too many newbies get bogged down with implementing data-structures and they quit Forth before having ever written even one simple application program.

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

#42228

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 2:33:48 AM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> Well, Chris, if you have at least one week of experience programming in Forth, you should be able to point out most of the problems with Elizabeth Rather's code. The point that I'm making, is that Elizabeth Rather is not a Forth programmer --- she has never written a Forth program in her life --- she knows as much about technology as any salesperson does, which is nothing.

My purpose was to introduce myself to the group, not cause friction. 

> ... Writing low-level code such as an array definer is boring --- if you are going to succeed as a Forth programmer, you have to succeed at writing application programs (even getting a simple program to work is a huge confidence builder for a newbie) --- too many newbies get bogged down with implementing data-structures and they quit Forth before having ever written even one simple application program.

My goal is not to 'succeed as a Forth programmer'. and I doubt if this little foray will turn into anything worth using or not. My goal is simply to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. Developing my very own Forth, one that I have complete control over and that I can take wherever I choose part of the journey for me. Don't worry, I'm NEVER bored.

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

#42234

On 9/28/2015 7:51 AM, Chris Curl wrote:
> On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 2:33:48 AM UTC-4,
> hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Well, Chris, if you have at least one week of experience
>> programming in Forth, you should be able to point out most of the
>> problems with Elizabeth Rather's code. The point that I'm making,
>> is that Elizabeth Rather is not a Forth programmer --- she has
>> never written a Forth program in her life --- she knows as much
>> about technology as any salesperson does, which is nothing.
>
> My purpose was to introduce myself to the group, not cause friction.
>
>> ... Writing low-level code such as an array definer is boring ---
>> if you are going to succeed as a Forth programmer, you have to
>> succeed at writing application programs (even getting a simple
>> program to work is a huge confidence builder for a newbie) --- too
>> many newbies get bogged down with implementing data-structures and
>> they quit Forth before having ever written even one simple
>> application program.
>
> My goal is not to 'succeed as a Forth programmer'. and I doubt if
> this little foray will turn into anything worth using or not. My goal
> is simply to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. Developing my very
> own Forth, one that I have complete control over and that I can take
> wherever I choose part of the journey for me. Don't worry, I'm NEVER
> bored.

Welcome to the group.

If you have used newsgroups much you probably know that each group has 
its problems.  This group has a fair share of those who it is better to 
just ignore.  If you read back even just a bit you will see who has 
tendencies to argue rather than discuss.  Some are even a bit off and 
can post some very irrational things.

Just trying to help.  Feel free to reply to anyone you find interesting. 
  But it can raise the noise level without purpose.

-- 

Rick

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

#42229

On 28/09/15 05:53, Chris Curl wrote:
> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 10:37:26 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
>> ANS-Forth was like that meteor that killed off the dinosaurs, except that instead of a big rock, it was a gigantic turd that landed on our heads --- now we have Forth-200x that is mandated to be 100% compatible with ANS-Forth --- more of the same!
> Great insight. Here we had a truly unique thing that could morph into anything, and change the trajectory of programming. And they killed it because they wanted to control it. What a shame.
>

Right enough is enough!

This is a damned lie and by repeating it ad infinite, it still won't 
become the truth!

I've got this scalding hot cup of coffee here, would love to throw it ...

ANS allowed(!) all different kind of implementations. That's what it was 
set up for, separating implementation from the application making words. 
Quite a liberation from the straight jackets, for sure! The notion of 
all the emerging new developments in the 1980's was inspiration.
Do some home work!

Behind the ANS facade, there's an ANS acknowledged very dynamic world of 
Forth(ish) implementations. An unheard of plethora of systems emerged. 
Take your pick or add one, ANS compliant or not, who cares. You can't 
even say there's a 2d spectrum of extremes. It's a real living 
multidimensional world in all directions. Totally different from 30 
years ago.

Sadly there was one group of Forth users who could not get to grips with 
this (even now): the ones who want every nut and bolt of the 
implementation prescribed. Kind of similar to the preANS standards 
(Forth 2012 committee don't fall in to this trap!)

Still those standards did not stop people from doing it differently. If 
needed to avoid tiring unproductive discussions with obedient standard 
followers, you could say you were using an interactive macro assembler 
and be done with it. And thanks to ANS it's now recognized as Forth and 
you can have fruitful conversations with other Forth(ish) users. Great, 
progress.

Remember the "FORTH can't do 32bits" said by the eye blinker wearers. 
Poor sods.

Hugh Aguilar, I'm amazed, he's sure lucky no one dragged him in court 
for slander (yet)! Pretty obnoxious this guy!
You're new here apparently...

 > Suffice to say that my implementation will be what I want it to be, 
not what some committee decrees.
 >

Good for you, keep up the good work. No one will stop you, why do you 
think that? '1000's' have preceded you, including the major vendors. 
There's nothing very special about it, sorry.
Neither worry about a Nacht und Nebel encounter with the Forth police, 
stupid conspiracy theories withstanding.

Experienced active genuine Forth users wasting too much time trying to 
do some damage control on CLF. And all for nothing, the shite won't stop 
of course. CLF is more damaging to Forth than any Forth standard 
published to date. Too many good people left, your loss.

... meanwhile the coffee is cold, my loss.

In utter anger and armed to the teeth, -r

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

#42230

OK then.

I am building my own little interactive macro assembler that is similar to Forth in spirit and behavior. As I am not interested in familiarizing myself the standard, or making it play nicely with offerings from others, it is very unlikely that this little tool I am building for myself will be ANS Forth compliant.

Given that reality, is this group a good place for me? Or am I too far out on the fringes for you folks?

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

#42231

On Monday, September 28, 2015 at 10:18:43 AM UTC-4, Chris Curl wrote:
> OK then.
> 
> I am building my own little interactive macro assembler that is similar to
 Forth in spirit and behavior. As I am not interested in familiarizing myself the
standard, or making it play nicely with offerings from others, it is very
unlikely that this little tool I am building for myself will be ANS Forth
compliant.
> 
> Given that reality, is this group a good place for me? Or am I too far out on the fringes for you folks?

Given the fact that the inventor of "Forth" re-wrote his language numerous times for his purpose at hand I believe you are in the right place.

The ANS/ISO standard, IMHO, simply allowed us to agree on some word names and 
word behaviours and call that a standard system.  The standard was tasked with 
trying to standardize something that by design was a challenge to standardize
so they did a reasonable job. It is not legislation.

My favourite Chuck Moore quote is "Standards are great, everybody should have 
one" :)

So I think you will find the group here open to your personal permutations of 
these Forth concepts into tools that allow YOU to be productive. That's how 
Forth started and the standard does not change that.  If it helps you to 
be standard great. If not, nobody has a right to critique you. You simply might
have to provide a little more explanation if you post code here.

That's my 2 cents Canadian, which is only 1p Sterling so take it for what it's worth.

BF

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

Page 1 of 8  [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

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

csiph-web