On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 08:56:54 UTC, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 19:28:52 UTC, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 1:43:39 AM UTC-7, johnro...@gmail.com wrote:
His brother worked for us after he left on the HPGL converter, not Hugh. When he complained about it,
I explained that Tom was confused about that, and thought that would be the end of it.
Tom Hart, here impersonating his brother John, is attacking my brother who was not
involved in any of this. Tom Hart is also lying when he says that this was explained to me
during my visit two years ago --- this implausible story is a recent fabrication.
Tom Hart's best friend, Juergen Pintaske, advocates physically attacking the family members of one's perceived enemies:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:59:04 AM UTC-7, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
But people are now allowed via systems like here to dump as much shit as they like
It should be ok as well then
to "physically" dump as much of the shit they supplied here physically on them as well.
Which would give some satisfaction - and at least be a stink.
It could be dumped as well on their wives or children. Or other relatives, why not.
It would show some responsibility.
For the rest of us who behave like a part of a community
Nobody wants to be a member of Tom Hart's community! Tom Hart and Juergen PintaskeTypical HUGH AGUILAR BULLSHIT.
deserve each other --- they can be a community of two.
I would not dare to call either of them friends, We do not know each other well enough.
We had very few few discussions on the phone and email exchanges ove the last 6 years.
As of ALL OF THE SHIT that Hugh produces,
I found it fair to start this thread and ask Testra for a statement.
When this was kindly sent by Testra, everybody stared to be a lier.
All documented in this thread. Or read it as PDF.
As everyboy is a lier for Hugh,In another thread this one her was used as basis.
by definition ( everybody) he is included as a lier.
Probably one with the highest level of performance.
This made me look again here after a long time.
This Thread I started 4 years ago.
And now we have achieved a special,
and I unfortunately missed the moment to take a screen print at 4444:
It is 4445 now -
You cannot get closer to fours.
Have a nice day,
and May The Fours Be With You.
On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 19:28:52 UTC, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 1:43:39 AM UTC-7, johnro...@gmail.com wrote:
His brother worked for us after he left on the HPGL converter, not Hugh. When he complained about it,
I explained that Tom was confused about that, and thought that would be the end of it.
Tom Hart, here impersonating his brother John, is attacking my brother who was not
involved in any of this. Tom Hart is also lying when he says that this was explained to me
during my visit two years ago --- this implausible story is a recent fabrication.
Tom Hart's best friend, Juergen Pintaske, advocates physically attacking the family members of one's perceived enemies:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:59:04 AM UTC-7, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
But people are now allowed via systems like here to dump as much shit as they like
It should be ok as well then
to "physically" dump as much of the shit they supplied here physically on them as well.
Which would give some satisfaction - and at least be a stink.
It could be dumped as well on their wives or children. Or other relatives, why not.
It would show some responsibility.
For the rest of us who behave like a part of a community
Nobody wants to be a member of Tom Hart's community! Tom Hart and Juergen PintaskeTypical HUGH AGUILAR BULLSHIT.
deserve each other --- they can be a community of two.
I would not dare to call either of them friends, We do not know each other well enough.
We had very few few discussions on the phone and email exchanges ove the last 6 years.
As of ALL OF THE SHIT that Hugh produces,
I found it fair to start this thread and ask Testra for a statement.
When this was kindly sent by Testra, everybody stared to be a lier.
All documented in this thread. Or read it as PDF.
As everyboy is a lier for Hugh,
by definition ( everybody) he is included as a lier.
Probably one with the highest level of performance.
On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 08:18:56 UTC+1, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 08:56:54 UTC, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 19:28:52 UTC, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 1:43:39 AM UTC-7, johnro...@gmail.com wrote:
His brother worked for us after he left on the HPGL converter, not Hugh. When he complained about it,
I explained that Tom was confused about that, and thought that would be the end of it.
Tom Hart, here impersonating his brother John, is attacking my brother who was not
involved in any of this. Tom Hart is also lying when he says that this was explained to me
during my visit two years ago --- this implausible story is a recent fabrication.
Tom Hart's best friend, Juergen Pintaske, advocates physically attacking
the family members of one's perceived enemies:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:59:04 AM UTC-7, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
But people are now allowed via systems like here to dump as much shit as they like
It should be ok as well then
to "physically" dump as much of the shit they supplied here physically on them as well.
Which would give some satisfaction - and at least be a stink.
It could be dumped as well on their wives or children. Or other relatives, why not.
It would show some responsibility.
For the rest of us who behave like a part of a community
Nobody wants to be a member of Tom Hart's community! Tom Hart and Juergen PintaskeTypical HUGH AGUILAR BULLSHIT.
deserve each other --- they can be a community of two.
I would not dare to call either of them friends, We do not know each other well enough.
We had very few few discussions on the phone and email exchanges ove the last 6 years.
As of ALL OF THE SHIT that Hugh produces,
I found it fair to start this thread and ask Testra for a statement.
When this was kindly sent by Testra, everybody stared to be a lier.
All documented in this thread. Or read it as PDF.
As everyboy is a lier for Hugh,In another thread this one her was used as basis.
by definition ( everybody) he is included as a lier.
Probably one with the highest level of performance.
This made me look again here after a long time.
This Thread I started 4 years ago.
And now we have achieved a special,UUUUPS - typo and before my first coffee ...
and I unfortunately missed the moment to take a screen print at 4444:
It is 4445 now -
You cannot get closer to fours.
Have a nice day,
and May The Fours Be With You.
We are at 4405 - but will be there at 4444 soon anyway ...
On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 08:22:16 UTC+1, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 08:18:56 UTC+1, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
On Sunday, 12 December 2021 at 08:56:54 UTC, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
On Saturday, 11 December 2021 at 19:28:52 UTC, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 1:43:39 AM UTC-7, johnro...@gmail.com wrote:
His brother worked for us after he left on the HPGL converter, not Hugh. When he complained about it,
I explained that Tom was confused about that, and thought that would be the end of it.
Tom Hart, here impersonating his brother John, is attacking my brother who was not
involved in any of this. Tom Hart is also lying when he says that this was explained to me
during my visit two years ago --- this implausible story is a recent fabrication.
Tom Hart's best friend, Juergen Pintaske, advocates physically attacking
the family members of one's perceived enemies:
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 4:59:04 AM UTC-7, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
But people are now allowed via systems like here to dump as much shit as they like
It should be ok as well then
to "physically" dump as much of the shit they supplied here physically on them as well.
Which would give some satisfaction - and at least be a stink.
It could be dumped as well on their wives or children. Or other relatives, why not.
It would show some responsibility.
For the rest of us who behave like a part of a community
Nobody wants to be a member of Tom Hart's community! Tom Hart and Juergen PintaskeTypical HUGH AGUILAR BULLSHIT.
deserve each other --- they can be a community of two.
I would not dare to call either of them friends, We do not know each other well enough.
We had very few few discussions on the phone and email exchanges ove the last 6 years.
As of ALL OF THE SHIT that Hugh produces,
I found it fair to start this thread and ask Testra for a statement. When this was kindly sent by Testra, everybody stared to be a lier.
All documented in this thread. Or read it as PDF.
As everyboy is a lier for Hugh,In another thread this one her was used as basis.
by definition ( everybody) he is included as a lier.
Probably one with the highest level of performance.
This made me look again here after a long time.
This Thread I started 4 years ago.
We are getting close to 4444, as it is 4424 now, greatAnd now we have achieved a special,UUUUPS - typo and before my first coffee ...
and I unfortunately missed the moment to take a screen print at 4444:
It is 4445 now -
You cannot get closer to fours.
Have a nice day,
and May The Fours Be With You.
We are at 4405 - but will be there at 4444 soon anyway ...
On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 1:55:46 PM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
How many Forth CPUs do you plan to design? How many do you need?This will be the last one. ...
Our present 16bit system has a USB interface, a local network,
a port for wireless, a serial port for
miscellaneous I/O, two pwm outputs, four encoder inputs, and outputs
to control four axis of motion.
The 32bit processor will enable us to increase the number of axis to 16, make the program space
60 times bigger, and execute code ten times faster, without changing the hardware.
On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 11:32:00 PM UTC-7, John Hart wrote:
On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 1:55:46 PM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
How many Forth CPUs do you plan to design? How many do you need?This will be the last one. ...
Our present 16bit system has a USB interface, a local network,
a port for wireless, a serial port for
miscellaneous I/O, two pwm outputs, four encoder inputs, and outputs
to control four axis of motion.
The 32bit processor will enable us to increase the number of axis to 16, make the program spaceAbout a month ago I received an email that said this: ------------------------------------------------------------------
60 times bigger, and execute code ten times faster, without changing the hardware.
From my experience on using the ispLSI, I doubt that the isp1048
can implement any kind of CPU.
I guess that the MiniForth is running on i8032 CPU. Am I right? ------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a common belief, that it is impossible to implement a processor
on the Lattice isp1048 PLD. Typically this assertion is followed by
the unbeliever explaining that he tried to do so, but that turkey didn't fly.
Having a job interviewer believe that I'm telling a tall tale means that
I won't get the job!
I think that Tom Hart and John Hart were fools to refuse to admit
that I wrote MFX for the MiniForth, saying that I am lying about this
and that I was never anything more than a maintenance programmer for
MFX that was written by John Hart and Steve Brault before I showed up.
When people say that the MiniForth was impossible due to the
Lattice isp1048 PLD being too limited to support a processor,
there are only two witnesses to the development of the MiniForth
who can attest that the MiniForth was successfully built.
These two witnesses are myself and Steve Brault.
When Testra accuses me of lying about writing MFX, Testra undermines
my credibility in attesting that the MiniForth was successfully built.
This leaves only Steve Brault to attest to the existence of the MiniForth.
Steve Brault seems to be quite absent in this thread attacking me.
If he were a loyal Testra employee he would have joined in on Tom Hart's attack on me, to prove his loyalty to Tom Hart (and keep his job).
He hasn't done so. This presumably means that he quit Testra sometime
after I quit Testra, likely for the same reason (low pay, although he was likely making two or three times what I made). This means that there are
no witnesses remaining to attest that the MiniForth actually existed.
This is why people feel comfortable in saying that the MiniForth
was not a processor but was just an i8032 program --- there is nobody
to contradict this accusation that the MiniForth is a tall tale.
In other words, Hugh must always see himself as the "King of the Hill",That's true. I can remember a discussion where it was something about "experts". https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/GOPs3a_OtJk/m/DQBjLUJ0BwAJ
as royalty, as perfect, and in total control, in regards to all things Forth. All conflict with Hugh shall be repressed, suppressed, and
oppressed, for Hugh is the King! All hail mighty Hugh!
It is all in the thread I started at the time to clarify what happened,
and many people gave their opinion. https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/wydQr643gX0
c.l.f has been not the most pleasant group on Usenet for years (actually, we're
the laughing stock of comp.lang.* since we talk a *lot* about our technology without actually using it), but I've gotten used to all the infighting.
c.l.f has been not the most pleasant group on Usenet for years (actually, we'reHere's a thread from 30 years ago. Chastising c.l.f. seems to have been
the laughing stock of comp.lang.* since we talk a *lot* about our technology
without actually using it), but I've gotten used to all the infighting.
as popular then as now :)
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 5:41:52 AM UTC+2, dxf wrote:
c.l.f has been not the most pleasant group on Usenet for years (actually, we're
Now, I'm not exclusively posting here. There is much more useful commenting on e.g.
Rosetta Code. Several times I got extremely smart and useful comment there. People on
comp.lang.c are very responsive and helpful. That's what makes a forum viable in the long
run IMHO.
Do I think c.l.f. will change? No, I think it's in the genes. On the other side, I think it's useful
to be confronted with your mirror image once in a while.
Hans
c.l.f has been not the most pleasant group on Usenet for years (actually, we're
the laughing stock of comp.lang.* since we talk a *lot* about our technology without actually using it), but I've gotten used to all the infighting.
I'm no C programmer, (nor even much of a Forth one) but I've heard of some >who got a right roasting in clc, back some years ago - seems some compiler >writers decided "undefined behaviour" meant they could mess up the
intentions of a coder with delight.
...
I rarely see newbies here (Which in a sense is understandable, because Forth has an
incredibly steep learning curve - so they quit quite quickly). It's rare to see that a newbie
is taking under the wings of a more senior programmer - gee, I was lucky.
I've noted a good amount of newbie activity on retro forums. Everything from
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:00:57 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
I've noted a good amount of newbie activity on retro forums. Everything from
If I knew nothing of Forth, didn't know any better and
stumbled into this group, I would be out of here very
quickly. Not because of the bickering of silly people, but
because of the primary subject matter discussed here,
compliance and nazi coding. However, important it is to
the professionals and wantabes, it ain't of general
programming interest and makes Forth look difficult and
problematic.
Fig provided a nice small sufficient program to work with
and published Forth Dimensions that provided code bits,
ideas and news that fostered interest, very little of which
means anything to today's group here. So yes, retro is
a draw back when Forth was fun.
So yes, retro is a draw back when Forth was fun.
https://youtu.be/8elAi-7G0OE?si=0gHUJ5XoYW75xNZkSo yes, retro is a draw back when Forth was fun.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUbxFeqRZwI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb-KkVNEbw8https://youtu.be/8elAi-7G0OE?si=0gHUJ5XoYW75xNZkSo yes, retro is a draw back when Forth was fun.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUbxFeqRZwI
So yes, retro is a draw back when Forth was fun.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUbxFeqRZwI
On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 8:27:07 PM UTC+2, Rod Pemberton wrote:
In other words, Hugh must always see himself as the "King of the Hill",That's true. I can remember a discussion where it was something about "experts". https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/GOPs3a_OtJk/m/DQBjLUJ0BwAJ
as royalty, as perfect, and in total control, in regards to all things Forth. All conflict with Hugh shall be repressed, suppressed, and oppressed, for Hugh is the King! All hail mighty Hugh!
The point that makes him *really* mad is that I neither care about labels nor
value being the "biggest ape on the hill". The only metric I find useful is what I
can do with what I got upstairs.
Since he is wired completely differently (he is actually *begging* for validation)
it intensely irritates him when somebody is not racing him or giving him kudos
for work he finds extremely important and valuable.
It is what it is.. What I do value Hugh for is that he's actually written Forth code -
so that alone IMHO justifies him being here
But maybe now you understand why I don't care about you, Hugh. Or anything you say about me. Or make me stop what I'm doing. To me, you're just a nobody
with a crazy opinion I don't care for.
Hans Bezemer
BTW, I can rip your NOVICE package till the last byte.
...
Hans Bezemer
BTW, I can rip your NOVICE package till the last byte.
Hans Bezemer appreciates the fact that I have posted Forth source-code
so he can rip it off (because he can't write Forth source-code himself),
but he will still continue to fling insults at me while he is ripping off my code.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 4:00:57 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
I've noted a good amount of newbie activity on retro forums. Everything from
If I knew nothing of Forth, didn't know any better and
stumbled into this group, I would be out of here very
quickly. Not because of the bickering of silly people, but
because of the primary subject matter discussed here,
compliance and nazi coding. However, important it is to
the professionals and wantabes, it ain't of general
programming interest and makes Forth look difficult and
problematic.
Fig provided a nice small sufficient program to work with
and published Forth Dimensions that provided code bits,
ideas and news that fostered interest, very little of which
means anything to today's group here. So yes, retro is
a draw back when Forth was fun.
On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
of ANS-Forth.
But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
of ANS-Forth.
But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
of ANS-Forth.
The good thing about Forth standards is that there are so many
to choose from. :D
On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 18:34:29 UTC+1, John Hart wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-7, Zbig wrote:
But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
of ANS-Forth.
ANY idea or definition that avoids the availabitiy if 50 or 100+ Forths is to be applauded..The good thing about Forth standards is that there are so manyIn the 90s I proposed Absolute Forth, a simple defining language to describe Forth variants.
to choose from. :D
The idea was to make is so automated tools could convert library functions from one variant to
another. At the time the idea went over like a lead balloon, probably because
it used local variables to define stack operations ... : OVER { a b - - a b a } a b a ; ...
which Forth Fundimentalists strongly objected to.
jrh
Reality is an information process, set in montion and sustained by God for a purpose.
In comparison to other languages so many Forths just lead to death of this wondeful language.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-7, Zbig wrote:
But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
of ANS-Forth.
The good thing about Forth standards is that there are so manyIn the 90s I proposed Absolute Forth, a simple defining language to describe Forth variants.
to choose from. :D
The idea was to make is so automated tools could convert library functions from one variant to
another. At the time the idea went over like a lead balloon, probably because
it used local variables to define stack operations ... : OVER { a b - - a b a } a b a ; ...
which Forth Fundimentalists strongly objected to.
jrh
Reality is an information process, set in montion and sustained by God for a purpose.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:22:52 AM UTC-7, Zbig wrote:
But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
of ANS-Forth.
The good thing about Forth standards is that there are so manyIn the 90s I proposed Absolute Forth, a simple defining language to describe Forth variants.
to choose from. :D
The idea was to make is so automated tools could convert library functions from one variant to
another. At the time the idea went over like a lead balloon, probably because
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
of ANS-Forth.
A bad thing?
On 29/09/2023 2:07 am, S Jack wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
of ANS-Forth.
A bad thing?Apparently. Folks who wanted a language got the beginnings of one
and told to fill the rest out for themselves. Meanwhile Standard
Teams and their helpers indulge themselves looking for wording that eliminates ambiguity - important in a language whose basis is concept
rather than code.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 7:41:59 PM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
On 29/09/2023 2:07 am, S Jack wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:Apparently. Folks who wanted a language got the beginnings of one
On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
of ANS-Forth.
A bad thing?
and told to fill the rest out for themselves. Meanwhile Standard
Teams and their helpers indulge themselves looking for wording that
eliminates ambiguity - important in a language whose basis is concept
rather than code.
Same size as Pascal, Pl1, assembly, ... etc. Anything more is application.
On 29/09/2023 2:26 pm, S Jack wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 7:41:59 PM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
On 29/09/2023 2:07 am, S Jack wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:Apparently. Folks who wanted a language got the beginnings of one
On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
of ANS-Forth.
A bad thing?
and told to fill the rest out for themselves. Meanwhile Standard
Teams and their helpers indulge themselves looking for wording that
eliminates ambiguity - important in a language whose basis is concept
rather than code.
Same size as Pascal, Pl1, assembly, ... etc. Anything more is application.In that case there ought to be countless Forth newcomers busily writing applications :)
On 29/09/2023 2:26 pm, S Jack wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 7:41:59 PM UTC-5, dxf wrote:
On 29/09/2023 2:07 am, S Jack wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 8:09:18 AM UTC-5, dxf wrote:Apparently. Folks who wanted a language got the beginnings of one
On 28/09/2023 12:04 am, S Jack wrote:
But Fig is directly responsible for where Forth is today. Washing
its hands of fig-Forth (it had served its purpose we were told),
Fig found itself a new role - to facilitate and develop a Forth
Standard through the FST (Forth Standards Team). FST gave us
Forth-79 and Forth-83. Forth-83 was in turn the basis document
of ANS-Forth.
A bad thing?
and told to fill the rest out for themselves. Meanwhile Standard
Teams and their helpers indulge themselves looking for wording that
eliminates ambiguity - important in a language whose basis is concept
rather than code.
Same size as Pascal, Pl1, assembly, ... etc. Anything more is application.In that case there ought to be countless Forth newcomers busily writing applications :)
Converting one Forth from and to standard forth is just a sed file.
It's not completely straight forward as sometimes order matters.
D would remove a signed number from the single stack, thenpush an equivalent signed double to the double stack.
D would be like S>D except for unsigned singles.M* would multiply two numbers on the single stack
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 2:14:06 PM UTC-7, S Jack wrote:
Converting one Forth from and to standard forth is just a sed file.
It's not completely straight forward as sometimes order matters.
You are assuming that all Forth designs are the same as ANS-Forth
except with different names for words or having more words (such as
having BOUNDS be a primitive rather than use OVER + SWAP).
This isn't true though.
ANS-Forth is very much based on Charles Moore's Forth for the
PDP-11 written in the 1970s. The PDP-11 had a shortage of registers
and most of the ANS-Forth design decisions assume a shortage of
registers, although this was no longer an issue in 1994 (it wasn't
an issue in 1983 either, as we already had the MC68000).
For example, a big part of why ANS-Forth code is hard to read
is that single and double-precision numbers are jumbled together
on the same data-stack. A better design is to have a separate stack
for double-precision numbers.
D would remove a signed number from the single stack, thenpush an equivalent signed double to the double stack.
D would be like S>D except for unsigned singles.M* would multiply two numbers on the single stack
(and remove them), then push the product to the double stack.
UM/MOD would unsigned divide a double on the double stack
by a number on the single stack, then push the remainder and quotient
to the single stack.
SAFE-UM/MOD would unsigned divide a double on the double stack
by a number on the single stack, then push the double-precision
remainder and quotient to the double stack.
etc.
Your SED file isn't going to convert code from a Forth that is
designed intelligently to run under ANS-Forth.
Note also that SAFE-UM/MOD can't be written in ANS-Forth,
despite the fact that it is used internally by # for pictured numbers. ANS-Forth provides UM/MOD (6.1.2370) but says:
"An ambiguous condition exists if [the denominator] is zero or if
the quotient lies outside the range of a single-cell unsigned integer."
What are you supposed to do if your quotient overflows, which will
happen if you have a small denominator?
What are you supposed to do if your remainder overflows, which will
happen if you have a large denominator?
The ANS-Forth document routinely uses the term "ambiguous condition"
that means: "up Shit Creek in a wire boat with a cardboard paddle."
ANS-Forth is really worthless from a technical standpoint.
ANS-Forth was a marketing gimmick from Elizabeth Rather.
Note also that SAFE-UM/MOD can't be written in ANS-Forth,
despite the fact that it is used internally by # for pictured numbers. >ANS-Forth provides UM/MOD (6.1.2370) but says:
"An ambiguous condition exists if [the denominator] is zero or if
the quotient lies outside the range of a single-cell unsigned integer."
What are you supposed to do if your quotient overflows, which will
happen if you have a small denominator?
What are you supposed to do if your remainder overflows, which will
happen if you have a large denominator?
The ANS-Forth document routinely uses the term "ambiguous condition"
that means: "up Shit Creek in a wire boat with a cardboard paddle."
ANS-Forth is really worthless from a technical standpoint.
ANS-Forth was a marketing gimmick from Elizabeth Rather.
In article <c2cbeb05-8191-4cd5-a015-825bf8624a15n@googlegroups.com>,
Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
Note also that SAFE-UM/MOD can't be written in ANS-Forth,
despite the fact that it is used internally by # for pictured numbers.
ANS-Forth provides UM/MOD (6.1.2370) but says:
"An ambiguous condition exists if [the denominator] is zero or if
the quotient lies outside the range of a single-cell unsigned integer."
What are you supposed to do if your quotient overflows, which will
happen if you have a small denominator?
What are you supposed to do if your remainder overflows, which will
happen if you have a large denominator?
The ANS-Forth document routinely uses the term "ambiguous condition"
that means: "up Shit Creek in a wire boat with a cardboard paddle."
ANS-Forth is really worthless from a technical standpoint.
ANS-Forth was a marketing gimmick from Elizabeth Rather.
Ambiguous means that the system is not obliged to detect the
condition. However a high quality system exists
exist that detects and flags ambiguous conditions.
For example gforth does that for a substantantial part of
ambiguous conditions.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:37:20 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 8:27:07 PM UTC+2, Rod Pemberton wrote:I'm surprised that Hans Bezemer would provide a link to that thread.
In other words, Hugh must always see himself as the "King of the Hill", as royalty, as perfect, and in total control, in regards to all things Forth. All conflict with Hugh shall be repressed, suppressed, and oppressed, for Hugh is the King! All hail mighty Hugh!That's true. I can remember a discussion where it was something about "experts". https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/GOPs3a_OtJk/m/DQBjLUJ0BwAJ
In it I was pointing out that he doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is, but he teaches the subject in his instructional videos.
I would expect him to be ashamed of this and not want it mentioned.
He thinks that segmented memory is Harvard Architecture! That is dumb!
The point that makes him *really* mad is that I neither care about labels norHans also has an instructional video teaching the subject of implementing
value being the "biggest ape on the hill". The only metric I find useful is what I
can do with what I got upstairs.
a string stack, which he doesn't know how to do. His video provided a graphical illustration of swapping two strings --- one string gets copied into a pad somewhere, then the other string gets copied to where it was, then the string in the pad gets copied to where that string was.
That was an hilarious video! Hans doesn't know what COW (copy-on-write)
is, or know that it is much faster to just swap the pointers to the strings rather than swap the entire strings.
Hans doesn't have any knowledge "upstairs" --- just a lot of hot air --- what he
does with what he has upstairs is make hilariously stupid instructional videos.
Since he is wired completely differently (he is actually *begging* for validation)Hans is still not making any sense.
it intensely irritates him when somebody is not racing him or giving him kudos
for work he finds extremely important and valuable.
If I wanted "validation" I would have stayed on the Forth-200x mailing list so my super-duper expert status would be validated by the Forth-200x committee. Being on the Forth-200x mailing list is essentially the same
as having reference letters from Stephen Pelc, Anton Ertl, Bernd Paysan, Peter Knaggs, etc., that can be used as validation of Forth expertise.
The whole point of being on the Forth-200x mailing list is so that,
in the unlikely case that a job in Forth is offered, the candidate can explain
that he is not just a mere Forth programmer, but he sets the standard for the entire Forth community. All Forth programmers rely on the Forth-200x experts to do their thinking for them! The Forth-200x committee considers them to be the elite whose opinion on Forth is valuable. Woo hoo!
It is what it is.. What I do value Hugh for is that he's actually written Forth code -There was this thread: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/hp1MbSkew08/m/os5OYTOeBAAJ Hans said:
so that alone IMHO justifies him being here
On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 7:37:35 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
But maybe now you understand why I don't care about you, Hugh. Or anything you say about me. Or make me stop what I'm doing. To me, you're just a nobody
with a crazy opinion I don't care for.
Hans Bezemer
BTW, I can rip your NOVICE package till the last byte.
Hans Bezemer appreciates the fact that I have posted Forth source-code
so he can rip it off (because he can't write Forth source-code himself),
but he will still continue to fling insults at me while he is ripping off my code.
Hans is a typical maintenance programmer --- they are all alike --- they require somebody to write the code, then they rip it off and claim
that they wrote it themselves. Testra employed a string of maintenance programmers after I left who claimed to be instant experts in MFX,
but all of them failed to learn to program in MFX --- maybe Testra will
hire Hans Bezemer next, as he seems to be their type.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 5:32:29 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:37:20 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 8:27:07 PM UTC+2, Rod Pemberton wrote: >>>> In other words, Hugh must always see himself as the "King of the Hill", >>>> as royalty, as perfect, and in total control, in regards to all things >>>> Forth. All conflict with Hugh shall be repressed, suppressed, andI'm surprised that Hans Bezemer would provide a link to that thread.
oppressed, for Hugh is the King! All hail mighty Hugh!That's true. I can remember a discussion where it was something about
"experts". https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/GOPs3a_OtJk/m/DQBjLUJ0BwAJ
In it I was pointing out that he doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is, >> but he teaches the subject in his instructional videos.
I would expect him to be ashamed of this and not want it mentioned.
He thinks that segmented memory is Harvard Architecture! That is dumb!
The point that makes him *really* mad is that I neither care about labels norHans also has an instructional video teaching the subject of implementing
value being the "biggest ape on the hill". The only metric I find useful is what I
can do with what I got upstairs.
a string stack, which he doesn't know how to do. His video provided a
graphical illustration of swapping two strings --- one string gets copied
into a pad somewhere, then the other string gets copied to where it was,
then the string in the pad gets copied to where that string was.
That was an hilarious video! Hans doesn't know what COW (copy-on-write)
is, or know that it is much faster to just swap the pointers to the strings >> rather than swap the entire strings.
Hans doesn't have any knowledge "upstairs" --- just a lot of hot air --- what he
does with what he has upstairs is make hilariously stupid instructional videos.
Since he is wired completely differently (he is actually *begging* for validation)Hans is still not making any sense.
it intensely irritates him when somebody is not racing him or giving him kudos
for work he finds extremely important and valuable.
If I wanted "validation" I would have stayed on the Forth-200x mailing list >> so my super-duper expert status would be validated by the Forth-200x
committee. Being on the Forth-200x mailing list is essentially the same
as having reference letters from Stephen Pelc, Anton Ertl, Bernd Paysan,
Peter Knaggs, etc., that can be used as validation of Forth expertise.
The whole point of being on the Forth-200x mailing list is so that,
in the unlikely case that a job in Forth is offered, the candidate can explain
that he is not just a mere Forth programmer, but he sets the standard for
the entire Forth community. All Forth programmers rely on the Forth-200x
experts to do their thinking for them! The Forth-200x committee considers
them to be the elite whose opinion on Forth is valuable. Woo hoo!
It is what it is.. What I do value Hugh for is that he's actually written Forth code -There was this thread:
so that alone IMHO justifies him being here
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/hp1MbSkew08/m/os5OYTOeBAAJ
Hans said:
On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 7:37:35 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
But maybe now you understand why I don't care about you, Hugh. Or anything >>> you say about me. Or make me stop what I'm doing. To me, you're just a nobody
with a crazy opinion I don't care for.
Hans Bezemer
BTW, I can rip your NOVICE package till the last byte.
Hans Bezemer appreciates the fact that I have posted Forth source-code
so he can rip it off (because he can't write Forth source-code himself),
but he will still continue to fling insults at me while he is ripping off my code.
Hans is a typical maintenance programmer --- they are all alike --- they
require somebody to write the code, then they rip it off and claim
that they wrote it themselves. Testra employed a string of maintenance
programmers after I left who claimed to be instant experts in MFX,
but all of them failed to learn to program in MFX --- maybe Testra will
hire Hans Bezemer next, as he seems to be their type.
Hugh, I'm always thankful when you dedicate an entire episode of your
famous rants to me. I know this is very therapeutic for you and I sincerily hope it contributes to your mental health in anyway.
I know this thread has been hard for you. There are still some cognative dissonance issues to settle. I know you're convinced to be a very
inventive, clever programmer - but the cold hard truth you slowly start
to accept is that no matter how liberal your license is - if nobody wants
to rip your code, I'd better be a pleasant hobby - and not a profession. Because that would be delusional.
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 5:32:29 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:37:20 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/GOPs3a_OtJk/m/DQBjLUJ0BwAJ I'm surprised that Hans Bezemer would provide a link to that thread.
In it I was pointing out that he doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is,
but he teaches the subject in his instructional videos.
I would expect him to be ashamed of this and not want it mentioned.
He thinks that segmented memory is Harvard Architecture! That is dumb!
... use generally accepted definitions and
concepts. That doesn't leave an impression of a raving lunatic
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:39:46 PM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 5:32:29 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:Hans Bezemer doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is. That is dumb!
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:37:20 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/GOPs3a_OtJk/m/DQBjLUJ0BwAJ I'm surprised that Hans Bezemer would provide a link to that thread.... use generally accepted definitions and
In it I was pointing out that he doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is,
but he teaches the subject in his instructional videos.
I would expect him to be ashamed of this and not want it mentioned.
He thinks that segmented memory is Harvard Architecture! That is dumb!
concepts. That doesn't leave an impression of a raving lunatic
He is ashamed of his failure to understand the accepted definition and concept of Harvard Architecture --- this is why he resorts to ad hominem attacks against me.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:41:31 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:39:46 PM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote: >>> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 5:32:29 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote: >>>> On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:37:20 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote: >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/GOPs3a_OtJk/m/DQBjLUJ0BwAJ >>>> I'm surprised that Hans Bezemer would provide a link to that thread.
Hans Bezemer doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is. That is dumb!In it I was pointing out that he doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is,... use generally accepted definitions and
but he teaches the subject in his instructional videos.
I would expect him to be ashamed of this and not want it mentioned.
He thinks that segmented memory is Harvard Architecture! That is dumb!
concepts. That doesn't leave an impression of a raving lunatic
He is ashamed of his failure to understand the accepted definition and
concept of Harvard Architecture --- this is why he resorts to ad hominem
attacks against me.
What's dumb is that you use your own definition. That's not how science works.
What's dumb is that you think that the most elaborate algorithm is the best choice in all situations. What's dumb is that you don't do your research. What's
dumb is seeking validation through narcicism. It doesn't work, Hugh.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:41:31 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:39:46 PM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 5:32:29 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:Hans Bezemer doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is. That is dumb!
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:37:20 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:... use generally accepted definitions and
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/GOPs3a_OtJk/m/DQBjLUJ0BwAJ
I'm surprised that Hans Bezemer would provide a link to that thread. In it I was pointing out that he doesn't know what Harvard Architecture is,
but he teaches the subject in his instructional videos.
I would expect him to be ashamed of this and not want it mentioned.
He thinks that segmented memory is Harvard Architecture! That is dumb!
concepts. That doesn't leave an impression of a raving lunatic
He is ashamed of his failure to understand the accepted definition and concept of Harvard Architecture --- this is why he resorts to ad hominem attacks against me.
What's dumb is that you use your own definition. That's not how science works.
What's dumb is that you think that the most elaborate algorithm is the best choice in all situations.
What's dumb is that you don't do your research.
What's dumb is seeking validation through narcicism. It doesn't work, Hugh.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:47:45 PM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
What's dumb is seeking validation through narcicism. It doesn't work, Hugh.
I still don't know what Hans is talking about.
The concept of "validation" implies an external authority that does the validating
On 2/10/2023 3:12 am, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:47:45 PM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
What's dumb is seeking validation through narcicism. It doesn't work, Hugh.
I still don't know what Hans is talking about.Testra gave you a bad reference [allegedly]. Lack of validation. When
The concept of "validation" implies an external authority that does the validating
nobody ran with the Novice pack - lack of validation. Humans are forever seeking validation - from peers, bosses, subordinates - it hardly matters.
I think Hans is referring to the fact that my STRING-STACK.4TH usesSo what? That's not rocket science. You make a dynamic string from my
COW (copy-on-write). This allows stack-juggling of the string-stack
to be done by moving pointers rather than entire strings.
I never said that the "that the most elaborate algorithm is the best choice in all situations." I did say that my STRING-STACK.4TH is far superior to any of the pathetic attempts at writing a string-stack that the self-proclaimed
Forth experts (including Hans Bezemer) have made since the time when
Forth was invented in the 1970s and the need for a string-stack became apparent.
Let's assume [STRING-STACK.4TH] is much faster [than Hans' string-stack
that moves entire strings around]
(which I doubt, considering the massive amount of code it takes).
...
That, Hugh is the reason why I think this is well deserved:
"What's dumb is that you think that the most elaborate algorithm is the best choice in all situations".
On Friday, May 12, 2023 at 3:53:36 PM UTC-7, John Hart wrote:
Something more compact and efficient than a CASE statement was
needed for defining logic equations in the FPGA4th system.
The solution was a set of words to build a look up table.
key MAP[ n \ begins the process of building the table.
a b MAP \ associates a with b
c d MAP \ associates c with d
e ]MAP \ ends the look up table process
note: n specifies the key size (2^n) 0 = 1 byte, 1 = 2 bytes, 2 = 4 bytes
At runtime, if the key = a, b is returned, if the key isn't found, e is returned
Two more words to complete the set.
a ]: starts compilation of code associated with a
;[ ends compilation
: ALU { a b cmd - - c } \ example
cmd MAP[ 1
O ]: a b + ;[ MAP \ add
1 ]: a b - ;[ MAP \ sub
2 ]: a b AND ;[ MAP \ and
3 ]: a b OR ;[ MAP \ or
]: 0 ;[ ]MAP
EXECUTE
;
jrhWay back in 1994 you told me that you had a super-fast jump-table look-up that could be used for simulating a processor. You recommended that I use this to simulate the MiniForth. You were using a sequential look-up!!!
I pointed out that a binary search would be much faster. You said that what you had was "super fast" because the 8086 has an instruction that does
a sequential search on a 16-bit number. That was dumb! A binary search is still going to be faster, except possibly for a very small array of numbers.
My FAST-SWITCH> (a jump table) and SLOW-SWITCH> (a sorted array and
a binary search) is posted here: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/HwxAddZ54mg/m/Fmg5xT08AAAJ
I'm far ahead of you.
Your MAP[ mentioned above is what you had in 1994. It wasn't any good then either.
What is your point in posting on comp.lang.forth???
You don't have anything to offer.
John Hart wrote a simulator for microprocessor code. He was using the
8086 SCASB instruction with REPZ to search his table for matching opcodes.
I said that a binary search would be faster. He said no, using the same
kind of thinking that Hans Bezemer uses. To paraphrase:
"I doubt that a binary search would be faster than a sequential search considering the massive amount of code that it takes. You always want to
use the most elaborate algorithm --- this is beyond my comprehension!"
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:04:44 PM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
John Hart wrote a simulator for microprocessor code. He was using the
8086 SCASB instruction with REPZ to search his table for matching opcodes. >> I said that a binary search would be faster. He said no, using the same
kind of thinking that Hans Bezemer uses. To paraphrase:
"I doubt that a binary search would be faster than a sequential search
considering the massive amount of code that it takes. You always want to
use the most elaborate algorithm --- this is beyond my comprehension!"
It depends on the number of opcodes you have to search. I spend a chapter
in my manual explaining it. The fastest is of course direct access - where the
thing to search is an index to a table.
If you can't do that, CASE..ENDCASE may be your friend. I found a binary search
paying off after about 100 entries - but not before. So a sequential search can
be faster in some cases. Just test it. "Meten is weten".
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:04:44 PM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
John Hart wrote a simulator for microprocessor code. He was using theIt depends on the number of opcodes you have to search. I spend a chapter
8086 SCASB instruction with REPZ to search his table for matching opcodes. I said that a binary search would be faster. He said no, using the same kind of thinking that Hans Bezemer uses. To paraphrase:
"I doubt that a binary search would be faster than a sequential search considering the massive amount of code that it takes. You always want to use the most elaborate algorithm --- this is beyond my comprehension!"
in my manual explaining it. The fastest is of course direct access - where the
thing to search is an index to a table.
If you can't do that, CASE..ENDCASE may be your friend. I found a binary search
paying off after about 100 entries - but not before. So a sequential search can
be faster in some cases. Just test it. "Meten is weten".
In the uBasic/4tH interpreter I used just about any technique in the book to speed
it up.
Hans Bezemer
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:33:55 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:04:44 PM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:where the
John Hart wrote a simulator for microprocessor code. He was using theIt depends on the number of opcodes you have to search. I spend a chapter
8086 SCASB instruction with REPZ to search his table for matching opcodes. >> > I said that a binary search would be faster. He said no, using the same
kind of thinking that Hans Bezemer uses. To paraphrase:
"I doubt that a binary search would be faster than a sequential search
considering the massive amount of code that it takes. You always want to >> > use the most elaborate algorithm --- this is beyond my comprehension!"
in my manual explaining it. The fastest is of course direct access -
thing to search is an index to a table.binary search
If you can't do that, CASE..ENDCASE may be your friend. I found a
paying off after about 100 entries - but not before. So a sequentialsearch can
be faster in some cases. Just test it. "Meten is weten".book to speed
In the uBasic/4tH interpreter I used just about any technique in the
it up.
Hans Bezemer
I meant SCASW not SCASB --- these were 16-bit opcodes --- not even John Hart >is so incompetent that he would use a sequential search for 8-bit opcodes
in which the sparse jump-table is only 256 words.
Hugh--
In my novice-package I have FAST-SWITCH> that uses a sparse jump-table
and SLOW-SWITCH> that uses a compacted jump-table with a
binary-search look-up.
Now, thanks to our Forth instructor Hans, we know what the names imply!
In that thread mentioned previously I provided the documentation for
my <SWITCH code:
In an assembler it is worth it using hash codes.
There are tools to generate a perfect hash... if you are after speed.
First gain is a cat spinning. - the Wise from Antrim -
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 2:01:05 AM UTC-7, none albert wrote:
In an assembler it is worth it using hash codes.
There are tools to generate a perfect hash... if you are after speed.
I'm talking about the simulator that looks up opcodes.
Albert van der Horst says "assembler" --- he may be confused
about what the topic of discussion is. I'm not talking about
the symbol table --- try to be more alert!
People are always telling me what I should do,
although they have done nothing.
A binary search, as I have in SLOW-SWITCH>, has predictable speed.
It is easy to calculate the worst-case speed (the maximum number
of comparisons), and the worst-case is not much worse than the
best-case. Consistency is more important than average speed
in a simulator because you may want to simulate the target processor
running at a certain Mhz., and simulate each instruction's speed
consistent to how many clock-cycles it takes on the target processor.
A hash-table could be used in a simulator, but it would be difficult
to predict the worst-case speed (a collision followed by a long
sequential search).
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:33:55 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:04:44 PM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
John Hart wrote a simulator for microprocessor code. He was using the
Hans BezemerI meant SCASW not SCASB --- these were 16-bit opcodes --- not even John Hart is so incompetent that he would use a sequential search for 8-bit opcodes
in which the sparse jump-table is only 256 words.
"The fastest is of course direct access -
where the thing to search is an index to a table."
Thank you very much, Captain Obvious!
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 5:20:51 pm UTC+10, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:33:55 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:Hugh, for my home computer like chip I originally aimed to use 8 bit codes as the upper bits of the address space, which is ok in simple tasks.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:04:44 PM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:I meant SCASW not SCASB --- these were 16-bit opcodes --- not even John Hart
John Hart wrote a simulator for microprocessor code. He was using theHans Bezemer
is so incompetent that he would use a sequential search for 8-bit opcodes in which the sparse jump-table is only 256 words.
"The fastest is of course direct access -
where the thing to search is an index to a table."
Thank you very much, Captain Obvious!
I am expanded this to multiple 8 bit spaces, and 16 bits etc and other sophisticated schemes into something new. But, I prefered 10 and 20 bits.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:04:35 AM UTC-7, S wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 5:20:51 pm UTC+10, Hugh Aguilar wrote:Is this in Verilog? Do you support interrupts?
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:33:55 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:Hugh, for my home computer like chip I originally aimed to use 8 bit codes as the upper bits of the address space, which is ok in simple tasks.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:04:44 PM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:I meant SCASW not SCASB --- these were 16-bit opcodes --- not even John Hart
John Hart wrote a simulator for microprocessor code. He was using theHans Bezemer
is so incompetent that he would use a sequential search for 8-bit opcodes
in which the sparse jump-table is only 256 words.
"The fastest is of course direct access -
where the thing to search is an index to a table."
Thank you very much, Captain Obvious!
I am expanded this to multiple 8 bit spaces, and 16 bits etc and other sophisticated schemes into something new. But, I prefered 10 and 20 bits.
I have a design for a chip but I haven't built it due to not knowing Verilog.
I did write an assembler and simulator for it.
I'm interested in any design that has some creativity to it --- not just a fork of the J1 processor.
My design is for the HX8K.
It has especial support for a byte-code VM.
The idea is to have a 64KW external memory that holds the Forth compiler, application code and data (more 64KW banks can be provided for large
amounts of data, but the Forth code has to be in the 0th bank).
The 8KW of internal memory is divided into 5KW for machine-code
and 3KW for data. ISRs and other speed-critical code are assembled.
In article <9176e0ac-11b5-4048...@googlegroups.com>,
Hugh Aguilar <hughag...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 2:01:05 AM UTC-7, none albert wrote:
In an assembler it is worth it using hash codes.
There are tools to generate a perfect hash... if you are after speed.
I'm talking about the simulator that looks up opcodes.
Albert van der Horst says "assembler" --- he may be confused
about what the topic of discussion is. I'm not talking about
the symbol table --- try to be more alert!
People are always telling me what I should do,
although they have done nothing.
A binary search, as I have in SLOW-SWITCH>, has predictable speed.You are not paying attention. A perfect hash is O(1) time.
It is easy to calculate the worst-case speed (the maximum number
of comparisons), and the worst-case is not much worse than the
best-case. Consistency is more important than average speed
in a simulator because you may want to simulate the target processor >running at a certain Mhz., and simulate each instruction's speed >consistent to how many clock-cycles it takes on the target processor.
A hash-table could be used in a simulator, but it would be difficult
to predict the worst-case speed (a collision followed by a long
sequential search).
Groetjes Albert
--
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring. You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in the air. First gain is a cat spinning. - the Wise from Antrim -
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:53:28 PM UTC-4, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
My design is for the HX8K.I'm curious. What did you put in your design that is specific for the HX8K?
It has especial support for a byte-code VM.Why external memory, rather than internal memory in a different FPGA?
The idea is to have a 64KW external memory that holds the Forth compiler, application code and data (more 64KW banks can be provided for large amounts of data, but the Forth code has to be in the 0th bank).
The 8KW of internal memory is divided into 5KW for machine-code
and 3KW for data. ISRs and other speed-critical code are assembled.
I think it is easy to find them with 64 kB of internal RAM.
I think that you should just leave me alone --- nasty troll!There are plenty of people here that would like to be left alone too. By
I don't think that you are a programmer at all.Why do you think you're qualified in any way to judge people who've worked
You are a total fake. PISS OFF!
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 2:23:36 PM UTC-7, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 12:53:28 PM UTC-4, Hugh Aguilar wrote:I'm curious. Why do you think that I'm going to respond to you?
My design is for the HX8K.I'm curious. What did you put in your design that is specific for the HX8K?
I have told you dozens of times: PISS OFF!
I think that you should just leave me alone --- nasty troll!It has especial support for a byte-code VM.Why external memory, rather than internal memory in a different FPGA?
The idea is to have a 64KW external memory that holds the Forth compiler,
application code and data (more 64KW banks can be provided for large amounts of data, but the Forth code has to be in the 0th bank).
The 8KW of internal memory is divided into 5KW for machine-code
and 3KW for data. ISRs and other speed-critical code are assembled.
I think it is easy to find them with 64 kB of internal RAM.
P.S. You are too stupid to know the difference between
64KB and 64KW.
You don't known that there is a difference in price
between an 18-bit FPGA with 32KW of internal memory and the
16-bit HX8K with 8KW of internal memory.
I don't think that you are a programmer at all.
You are a total fake. PISS OFF!
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 4:28:34 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
I think that you should just leave me alone --- nasty troll!There are plenty of people here that would like to be left alone too. By
a troll whose name shall not be mentioned.
I don't think that you are a programmer at all.
You are a total fake. PISS OFF!
Why do you think you're qualified in any way to judge people who've worked for decades in that line of work? And why do you think people asked for that judgement, value that judgement - or even care about that judgement?
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 4:28:34 AM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
I don't think that you [Rick Collins] are a programmer at all.
You are a total fake. PISS OFF!
Why do you think you're qualified in any way to judge people who've worked for decades in that line of work? And why do you think people asked for that judgement, value that judgement - or even care about that judgement?
I can easily see that Rick Collins is a total fake.I know of another guy who says he's written "fast switch" libs and "string stack" libs - and nobody has ever seen the code. It seems Rick is not the
He has never written any Forth code that anybody has ever seen.
You are a total fake too --- you produce instructional videos in whichLast time, I was thinking of challenging dxforth to take a bet with me
you teach us that your 8086 Forth is "Harvard Architecture."
Juergen Pintaske contacted your employer and tried to convinceI've been playing the corporate game for decades now. It comes with
them to denounce you on comp.lang.forth the same way that
he convinced Tom Hart to denounce me on comp.lang.forth.
They did not respond to him.
Now you support Juergen Pintaske in attacking me.I'm not attacking you. I've been trying for ages to talk some sense
I'm not attacking you. I've been trying for ages to talk some sense
into you. But like I said before: you-just-don't-listen. You've been
making a fool of yourself for ages - and you don't even seem to get
it.
It's not just himself who is being made a fool of. We (anyone to responds to him) are the fools.I consider that a defensible position.
I would love to have a rational discussion with him. But there's always something that triggers his delusions of persecution.Well, that's true. He certainly has some trigger points - although they
I think he is afraid of a discussion with me ever since he complainedThere are several "tactics" he uses. One is "moving the goalposts", the
about some "inefficient" code I posted, where his approach had
exactly the same issue. Others chimed into to point out that our code
worked identically and he simply stopped replying.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:04:35 AM UTC-7, S wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 5:20:51 pm UTC+10, Hugh Aguilar wrote:Is this in Verilog? Do you support interrupts?
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 10:33:55 AM UTC-7, Hans Bezemer wrote:Hugh, for my home computer like chip I originally aimed to use 8 bit codes as the upper bits of the address space, which is ok in simple tasks.
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 7:04:44 PM UTC+2, Hugh Aguilar wrote:I meant SCASW not SCASB --- these were 16-bit opcodes --- not even John Hart
John Hart wrote a simulator for microprocessor code. He was using theHans Bezemer
is so incompetent that he would use a sequential search for 8-bit opcodes
in which the sparse jump-table is only 256 words.
"The fastest is of course direct access -
where the thing to search is an index to a table."
Thank you very much, Captain Obvious!
I am expanded this to multiple 8 bit spaces, and 16 bits etc and other sophisticated schemes into something new. But, I prefered 10 and 20 bits.
I have a design for a chip but I haven't built it due to not knowing Verilog.
I did write an assembler and simulator for it.
I'm interested in any design that has some creativity to it --- not just a fork of the J1 processor.
My design is for the HX8K. It has especial support for a byte-code VM.
The idea is to have a 64KW external memory that holds the Forth compiler, application code and data (more 64KW banks can be provided for large
amounts of data, but the Forth code has to be in the 0th bank).
The 8KW of internal memory is divided into 5KW for machine-code
and 3KW for data. ISRs and other speed-critical code are assembled.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 40:14:46 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,353,720 |