Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #39514
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Is Forth About Tinkering Rather than Design? |
| Date | 2015-06-02 04:05 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <mkjo13$ln0$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
I was thinking about a timing issue and recalled that Chuck Moore had to write code to test his idea that he could use timing loops in the GA144 to control a video display. The timing loops didn't work and he had to add a crystal oscillator. I think instead he ended up using a ceramic resonator because he couldn't get the crystal to start up reliably. Neither of these results were unforeseeable. I also remember taking my swing at the GA144 and through analysis realized the bottleneck in the design would be the memory performance. So I tried to analyze a sync DRAM interface only to be limited by the timing data provided for the GA144. When I asked for more detailed timing info on the instructions for comms and I/O I was told I didn't need that info, I should just build the design code it up and see if it works. When I said that was not the way I work, rather I do analysis before I design I was told that was how that person had been doing Forth design for 40 years, by building and testing. To me, when I should be able to do analysis to determine limitations and feasibility, it just seems silly to spend time on building and testing only to find things don't work. I know I would never try to use timing loops to generate video signals. I think a simple analysis would show the lack of stability. Timing data is just so basic to the definition of a digital device that I can't see any reason to not want to use it to save days or weeks of development and testing that might well prove fruitless. Is it typical in the Forth community to code things up rather than to think them through? -- Rick
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — 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