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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #38659 > unrolled thread

Less Is Moore

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

Contents

  Less Is Moore Steve Graham <solitary.wanderer52@gmail.com> - 2015-04-27 13:10 -0700
    Re: Less Is Moore "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-04-27 21:22 +0100
      Re: Less Is Moore "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-04-27 13:29 -1000
        Re: Less Is Moore Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-04-28 01:12 -0700
    Re: Less Is Moore "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-04-27 18:37 -0400
      Re: Less Is Moore "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-04-27 18:39 -0400
        Re: Less Is Moore "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-04-27 13:26 -1000
          Re: Less Is Moore "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-04-27 20:11 -0400
            Re: Less Is Moore "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-04-27 17:59 -1000
    Re: Less Is Moore "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-05-01 13:39 +1000

#38659 — Less Is Moore

https://samgentle.com/posts/2015-04-26-less-is-moore

The author posits that Forth is minimalistic because it originated in a resource-constrained era and asks if it is still relevant?

What other strengths of Forth do you appreciate other than the ability to operate in systems with relatively constrained resources?

Steve

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#38660

on 27/04/2015 21:10:04, Steve Graham wrote:
> https://samgentle.com/posts/2015-04-26-less-is-moore
> 
> The author posits that Forth is minimalistic because it originated in
> a resource-constrained era and asks if it is still relevant?
> 
> What other strengths of Forth do you appreciate other than the ability
> to operate in systems with relatively constrained resources?
> 
> Steve
> 

Dealing with the "relatively constrained resources" dismissal first:

"Forth from a time when computers were slower and less forgiving. I don't
think this is a coincidence. Constrained environments require efficiency
and elegance in design... Communicating this text on a system probably
10+ layers removed from the bare metal, it's hard to argue that you don't
get a lot done by just embracing all of the frameworks and platforms,
efficiency be damned. I think this is a significant factor that makes
Moore, like Forth, a fairly fringe player in the programming language
scene."

Moore might be fringe, but Forth not so, and resource constrained
Internet of Things is the brave new world. The things can be very small
and very constrained indeed. Apple Watch. Nest. My coffee pot. 

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

#38666

On 4/27/15 10:22 AM, Alex McDonald wrote:
> on 27/04/2015 21:10:04, Steve Graham wrote:
>> https://samgentle.com/posts/2015-04-26-less-is-moore
>>
>> The author posits that Forth is minimalistic because it originated in
>> a resource-constrained era and asks if it is still relevant?
>>
>> What other strengths of Forth do you appreciate other than the ability
>> to operate in systems with relatively constrained resources?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
> Dealing with the "relatively constrained resources" dismissal first:
>
> "Forth from a time when computers were slower and less forgiving. I don't
> think this is a coincidence. Constrained environments require efficiency
> and elegance in design... Communicating this text on a system probably
> 10+ layers removed from the bare metal, it's hard to argue that you don't
> get a lot done by just embracing all of the frameworks and platforms,
> efficiency be damned. I think this is a significant factor that makes
> Moore, like Forth, a fairly fringe player in the programming language
> scene."
>
> Moore might be fringe, but Forth not so, and resource constrained
> Internet of Things is the brave new world. The things can be very small
> and very constrained indeed. Apple Watch. Nest. My coffee pot.
>

Yes. Particularly in fields where volumes of devices are extremely high, 
there's a lot of pressure to keep costs down. Even though "memory's 
cheap" (a cry we've been hearing for at least 30 years), there's always 
pressure on a product to do more, be smarter, store more data, etc. Any 
technology that facilitates this has a place today, as ever.

The challenge is to get the facts out for entrepreneurs to take 
advantage of!

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]

#38681

It's about efficiency. I'll make no bones about it: I have my eye on
making money with Forth. I'm not too far away, though it's taken 
longer to get things in place than I thought it would, and still 
some way to go.

As has already been mentioned, most modern CPUs and MCUs are not
particularly resource constrained. However, Forth is particularly
effective at allowing one to get the absolute maximum out of the
hardware. That might allow me to use a smaller, or slower (or both)
part which equates to cheaper part on a board. That saves money,
and potentially allows me to increase margin. I could develop an 
embedded application using embedded Java, and my MCU would probably
need a couple of hundred of K of RAM to run it. It would do the
job just fine. Using Forth, I could maybe do the same thing in
64K, all in on-board MCU memory, at assembly language speed.
That might allow me to use to smaller, and cheaper, and more
power efficient part, and still get the same performance.

It's a win all-round.

That's where Forth's sweet spot is IMO.

But we're preaching to the choir here! The "problem" is how do
we get the message out there?

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

#38663

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:10:01 -0400, Steve Graham  
<solitary.wanderer52@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://samgentle.com/posts/2015-04-26-less-is-moore
>
> The author posits that Forth is minimalistic because it originated
> in a resource-constrained era and asks if it is still relevant?

I see that as a valid question.  BASIC on the Commodore C64 is not
well-suited to a modern x86 PC with lots of memory.  The language
has constraints due to the constrained resources of the original
machine.  Forth obviously requires lots of stack juggling.  This
is an activity which is needed in other languages.


Rod Pemberton

-- 
Cars kill more people than guns in the U.S.
Yet, no one is trying to take away your car.

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

#38664

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:37:23 -0400, Rod Pemberton <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm>  
wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:10:01 -0400, Steve Graham  
> <solitary.wanderer52@gmail.com> wrote:

>> https://samgentle.com/posts/2015-04-26-less-is-moore
>>
>> The author posits that Forth is minimalistic because it originated
>> in a resource-constrained era and asks if it is still relevant?
>
> I see that as a valid question.  BASIC on the Commodore C64 is not
> well-suited to a modern x86 PC with lots of memory.  The language
> has constraints due to the constrained resources of the original
> machine.  Forth obviously requires lots of stack juggling.  This
> is an activity which is needed in other languages.

Ooops...  s/needed/unneeded

RP


-- 
Cars kill more people than guns in the U.S.
Yet, no one is trying to take away your car.

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

#38665

On 4/27/15 12:39 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:37:23 -0400, Rod Pemberton
> <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:10:01 -0400, Steve Graham
>> <solitary.wanderer52@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> https://samgentle.com/posts/2015-04-26-less-is-moore
>>>
>>> The author posits that Forth is minimalistic because it originated
>>> in a resource-constrained era and asks if it is still relevant?
>>
>> I see that as a valid question.  BASIC on the Commodore C64 is not
>> well-suited to a modern x86 PC with lots of memory.  The language
>> has constraints due to the constrained resources of the original
>> machine.  Forth obviously requires lots of stack juggling.  This
>> is an activity which is needed in other languages.
>
> Ooops...  s/needed/unneeded

Yes, but it's an activity on the programmer's part, not the device's. 
And experienced Forth programmers need a lot less of it than other 
people. The fact is, Forth applications are consistently a lot smaller 
than programs written in languages that "don't need stack juggling" with 
comparable performance.

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]

#38667

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:26:17 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather  
<erather@forth.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/15 12:39 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:37:23 -0400, Rod Pemberton
>> <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:10:01 -0400, Steve Graham
>>> <solitary.wanderer52@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> https://samgentle.com/posts/2015-04-26-less-is-moore
>>>>
>>>> The author posits that Forth is minimalistic because it originated
>>>> in a resource-constrained era and asks if it is still relevant?
>>>
>>> I see that as a valid question.  BASIC on the Commodore C64 is not
>>> well-suited to a modern x86 PC with lots of memory.  The language
>>> has constraints due to the constrained resources of the original
>>> machine.  Forth obviously requires lots of stack juggling.  This
>>> is an activity which is needed in other languages.
>>
>> Ooops...  s/needed/unneeded
>
> Yes, but it's an activity on the programmer's part, not the device's.

Yes, but one could argue that the activity came about due to scarce
resources or an over-emphasis on language simplicity.

> And experienced Forth programmers need a lot less of it than other
> people. The fact is, Forth applications are consistently a lot smaller
> than programs written in languages that "don't need stack juggling"
> with comparable performance.
>

Is size the goal or speed or correctness or readability?  ...

For most of my programming history, speed has been of the utmost
importance, without regard for the language.

Forth programmers seem to place a tremendous importance on small
code size.  This too seems to be unecessary for modern machines.
Even small embedded devices today have access to large capacity
storage and high-speed bandwidth.

Whereas for C programmers, the emphasis is mostly on speed, but
with much emphasis on correctness of code.


Rod Pemberton

-- 
Cars kill more people than guns in the U.S.
Yet, no one is trying to take away your car.

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

#38672

On 4/27/15 2:11 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:26:17 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather
> <erather@forth.com> wrote:
>> On 4/27/15 12:39 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 18:37:23 -0400, Rod Pemberton
>>> <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:10:01 -0400, Steve Graham
>>>> <solitary.wanderer52@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> https://samgentle.com/posts/2015-04-26-less-is-moore
>>>>>
>>>>> The author posits that Forth is minimalistic because it originated
>>>>> in a resource-constrained era and asks if it is still relevant?
>>>>
>>>> I see that as a valid question.  BASIC on the Commodore C64 is not
>>>> well-suited to a modern x86 PC with lots of memory.  The language
>>>> has constraints due to the constrained resources of the original
>>>> machine.  Forth obviously requires lots of stack juggling.  This
>>>> is an activity which is needed in other languages.
>>>
>>> Ooops...  s/needed/unneeded
>>
>> Yes, but it's an activity on the programmer's part, not the device's.
>
> Yes, but one could argue that the activity came about due to scarce
> resources or an over-emphasis on language simplicity.

I understand that from an inexperienced Forther's POV it seems 
burdensome, but with practice (e.g. a few days intensive use) using the 
stack becomes comfortable and intuitive. "Over-emphasis" is a judgement 
call that most Forth programmers would disagree with.

>> And experienced Forth programmers need a lot less of it than other
>> people. The fact is, Forth applications are consistently a lot smaller
>> than programs written in languages that "don't need stack juggling"
>> with comparable performance.
>
> Is size the goal or speed or correctness or readability?  ...

It depends entirely on the project. Small "internet of things" devices 
will certainly care about size, because they will be replicated in very 
high volume and even small unit cost savings will pay off bigtime. 
Correctness is readily attainable with Forth, as its use in 
mission-critical projects attests. Readability depends on both the 
programmer and the reader's familiarity with Forth.

> For most of my programming history, speed has been of the utmost
> importance, without regard for the language.
>
> Forth programmers seem to place a tremendous importance on small
> code size.  This too seems to be unecessary for modern machines.
> Even small embedded devices today have access to large capacity
> storage and high-speed bandwidth.
>
> Whereas for C programmers, the emphasis is mostly on speed, but
> with much emphasis on correctness of code.

Speed is as much a consequence of program design as it is of language. 
Many years ago FORTH, Inc. was tasked with replacing a real-time 
computer system programmed in assembler, used for managing the baggage 
conveyors for American Airlines at LAX. The existing program was not 
meeting performance specs. The Forth version was significantly faster, 
with a throughput ~20% faster than the assember version. Was this ITC 
Forth faster than assembler? certainly not (although polyFORTH was a 
very fast ITC implementation). But our multitasker and overall program 
design paid off in performance. Today's fast optimized Forths will be 
competitive in every use.

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]

#38739

Steve Graham wrote:
> https://samgentle.com/posts/2015-04-26-less-is-moore
>
> The author posits that Forth is minimalistic because it originated in a
> resource-constrained era and asks if it is still relevant?

The subject line says it all.

Moore believed in minimalism as a principle and Forth was the result.

> What other strengths of Forth do you appreciate other than the ability to operate in
> systems with relatively constrained resources?

Insofar as minimalism encourages thoughtful programming, Forth will
continue to have a place for those who care.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web