Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #19912
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Integer cosine function |
| Date | 2013-02-22 17:45 +0100 |
| Organization | 1&1 Internet AG |
| Message-ID | <kg87bo$ss9$1@online.de> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <7532b5f1-3390-4449-b16d-ff147eb50d76@googlegroups.com> <kg52g7$abo$1@online.de> <nNidnRZYFv0c3LrMnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@supernews.com> <kg80vi$od3$1@online.de> <slrnkif6cd.db8.zbigniew2011REMOVE@Tichy.myhome.org> |
Zbiggy wrote: > In comp.lang.forth, Bernd Paysan wrote: >> I've ported Gforth to a competitor of the 8051, the R8C, it took a week >> to >> get Gforth up and running. It is a nice CPU. I also like the msp430. >> There are nice CPUs in the 8051 ballpark out there, and there is crapware >> like the 8051, and it *does* impact my productivity. > > But, actually, what makes it so crappy? What's wrong with 8051? It's very > ubiquitous. Is it possible, that having better offers, so many people > choose "crap" instead? Yes. Because these people usually don't know of the better offers. The say "the 8051 is ubiquitous, and million flies can't be wrong." Wikipedia has a nice article why "ad populum" is a fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Informed decisions are not easy. You have to look at different CPUs, and carefully evaluate their capabilities, write code on them, look at how they perform, and when you use them inside a SoC, look at the implementation and judge how good that is. So what did my customers say when I asked them why they want to use the 8051? "We have used the 8051 20 years ago" (which meant right after the 8051 was released, because they came to us in 2001). Ok, I really believe they did, because they looked old enough. In 1980, the 8051 was a hot new microcontroller, and one of the first single-chip microcontrollers. They also explained to me that we need to use a steep bandpass filter for the acoustic surface wave, because they have used a colorburst filter for that 20 years ago. Yes, if you build such a touch screen out of discrete components as a prototype, using a NTSC colorburst filter from a color TV is a clever idea. If you do that all in full custom silicon, using a synchronous demodulator is the way to go. But that would be new, and not tested. The 8051 design was originally meant as single-chip controller with an on- chip 4k instruction ROM, and a small, byte-addressed RAM, including special function registers in that address space (the RAM is 128 bytes, leaving space for another 128 bytes of special function registers). The killer feature of the 8051 were the bit operations for selected IOs and RAM registers (BTW: The first deployment of the b16 had some modifications, and one of them was bit manipulation). If you use such a controller, you don't need many features, it is pretty small, and you want the program to be compact. The original 8051 used a 12 cycle microcode engine, which meant it also was pretty slow, and the instruction set as a result was designed in a way that makes fast implementations pretty hard to do. As this is really not big enough for most uses of the 8051 today, people added an "external RAM" address space (which really is internal, as well), and increased the code memory, which today is flash, not mask-programmed ROM. This IMHO completely ruins the architecture, because that wasn't the original design goal. All these controllers have pretty narrow design goals, and that's actually a good thing - as we Forthers know, you should not imagine the future, but build for the problem at hand. In so far, as 4k code+128 bytes RAM machine, the 8051 is, considered state-of-the-art of now 30 years ago, *not* horrible, or, let's say, not that much more horrible than the competition like the PIC16. But it's not designed for anything bigger than that. The PICs at least got a new instruction set for each generation, each of them better than the one before, though each of them, from today's knowledge, certainly byzantine. I think one of the reasons why the 8051 is so popular for SoCs is that Intel soon lost interest in selling them, while clones were already on the market (and Intel had licensed the 8051 from the beginning, which created an industry standard). This means the architecture is completely free and open to clone for whoever likes to, and has been for a long time. Openness is an advantage by itself, even if there are no technical merits behind. Compare ARM: You *have* to buy this from ARM, and pay an arm and a leg for it. No second source for their IP. Thanks to openCore, you now can also have other popular controllers as open softcore IP, like the MSP430. But for a long time, that wasn't the case. And many developer don't feel like creating a CPU *and* the necessary toolchain (which I needed to do for the b16, being Forth, it was a piece of cake), usually they rather like to take things from the shelf and plug them in. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-16 07:35 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-02-17 13:57 +0200
Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-17 09:40 -0600
Re: Integer cosine function "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-02-17 07:51 -1000
Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-02-17 19:06 +0200
Re: Integer cosine function anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-02-18 14:46 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-19 20:01 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-02-19 21:34 +0200
Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-19 21:46 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-19 15:55 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2013-02-21 00:59 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-18 09:19 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-18 14:27 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-18 20:53 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-18 19:10 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-19 13:13 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-19 23:04 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-02-20 10:00 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-21 13:04 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 19:03 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 02:45 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-22 02:32 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 16:01 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 22:07 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-23 10:27 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-22 03:59 -0600
Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-02-22 02:30 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 15:56 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-22 16:13 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 17:45 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2013-02-22 18:44 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 19:19 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 14:43 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-23 01:30 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 21:51 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-24 01:43 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-02-25 17:55 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-25 21:01 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-25 23:22 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-26 15:11 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-27 08:05 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-27 22:14 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-27 22:56 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:37 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-03-07 13:12 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-28 08:00 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:38 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-02-28 16:55 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:38 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-04 11:08 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-04 03:39 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-04 20:49 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-03-05 10:20 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-07 00:12 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-08 04:21 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-04 20:50 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-03-05 07:16 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-03-06 17:56 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-07 00:24 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-03-07 07:34 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-02-28 12:57 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-28 17:07 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-28 19:37 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-03-01 10:56 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-03-01 13:52 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 17:48 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-03-13 17:44 -0400
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-03-01 21:36 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2013-03-01 19:14 -1000
Re: Integer cosine function mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2013-03-02 09:34 +0200
Re: Integer cosine function kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2013-03-02 09:06 -0600
Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-26 08:53 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-26 16:59 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-02-27 00:52 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-27 04:07 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 20:51 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 17:58 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-06 16:39 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 14:21 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-07 00:11 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-03-06 23:44 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 16:24 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-07 01:59 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 19:48 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-03-07 16:22 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-06 23:37 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotz.cnm> - 2013-02-23 09:54 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 21:03 +0000
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 15:59 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-03-05 16:38 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-22 12:07 -0600
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-22 19:39 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-02-22 09:23 -1000
Re: Integer cosine function Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-02-23 04:44 -0600
Re: Integer cosine function Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2013-02-22 13:00 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-02-23 01:09 +0100
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 21:16 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-02-22 20:28 -0500
Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-02-27 07:59 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-02-27 08:48 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-02-27 10:23 -0800
Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-03-15 10:14 -0700
Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-03-15 13:19 -0700
Re: Integer cosine function Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2013-03-15 13:28 -0700
Re: Integer cosine function Gary Bergstrom <g.bergstrom@ieee.org> - 2013-03-15 21:13 -0700
csiph-web