Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #39680
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-06-10 05:59 -0700 |
| References | <mkjo13$ln0$1@dont-email.me> <DN-dnfbdXLgIdPDInZ2dnUU7-I2dnZ2d@supernews.com> <564c1313-344a-486c-a35b-55f09bc3b886@googlegroups.com> <87bngqvoid.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> |
| Message-ID | <7445ad71-a561-45b4-97dd-e263e6480da7@googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| Subject | Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? |
| From | djc <ciesinger@gmx.net> |
Am Montag, 8. Juni 2015 05:59:39 UTC+2 schrieb Paul Rubin: > djc writes: > > Turnaround cycles for embedded systems written in C may still be in > > the 30-45 minutes range from saving the code, compiling, linking, > > flashing to starting the debug process. > > Is that for real? On current systems where people also use Forth, not > some relic from the era where the debug cycle involved waiting for a UV > eprom eraser? Using a current C environment for complex embedded systems. * C preprocessor * C compiler * C linker * (erase code/data flash) - optional, calibration is lost here * flash to target via JTAG (not UV) - not including calibration of the SW in the target We talk about several 100k of object code and Megabytes of source code. I do not say that this is desirable. > These days I don't think it takes more than a few seconds to compile a > reasonable size C program and flash it into an Arduino. "Reasonable" is very dependent on the perspective and the targets. For the Arduino, it may be a matter of seconds, but think about MSP56xx and friends and their areas of application... Daniel
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 04:05 -0400
Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 09:52 -0700
Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-06-02 09:55 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-06-02 10:09 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-06-02 10:01 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-06-02 07:36 -1000
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? djc <ciesinger@gmx.net> - 2015-06-05 02:50 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-06-05 11:32 +0000
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? djc <ciesinger@gmx.net> - 2015-06-05 05:01 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-05 17:04 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-07 23:12 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-06-08 09:48 +0000
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-07 20:59 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? djc <ciesinger@gmx.net> - 2015-06-10 05:59 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-10 09:05 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-10 09:28 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-10 10:51 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-10 14:17 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-10 20:20 +0200
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-10 15:03 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-10 22:06 +0200
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-10 19:13 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-11 02:59 +0200
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-10 21:41 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? djc <ciesinger@gmx.net> - 2015-06-11 00:40 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-11 01:24 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-06-11 05:33 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-06-10 10:37 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-11 00:17 -0700
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-06-10 18:13 +0000
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-06-02 14:21 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-06-02 14:27 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? Bob <bob@none.com> - 2015-06-02 16:04 -0400
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-03 05:17 +0000
Re: Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-06-03 03:07 -0400
csiph-web