Jurgen Pitaske <jpitaske@gmail.com> writes:
>On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 09:14:25 UTC+1, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> However, he has always used outdated processes (and I remember the
>> name MOSIS, but not Globalfoundries), so it's not very likely that he
>> finds problems and solutions that make a difference for a lot of other
>> products.
>
>These were not outdated processes of MOSIS at the time.

They were many generations behind the leading edge. Such processes
are usually used for existing, working designs (designed at a time
when the process was leading edge or close to it), not for new
designs, so whatever he found out about the process did not help many
others.

>Chuck had to use processes that he could afford
>and that were available for the way he generated the GDSII.

This may explain, but does not contradict what I wrote.

>See Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSIS
>It seems that the MOSIS Website is dead now,

Works for me, albeit only with JavaScript. They seem to no longer do
their own manufacturing (if they ever did; I used to think so), but
currently serve as an intermediary to the big foundries TSMC and
Globalfoundries; it seems that you can still get very old processes
from these foundries. MOSIS offers TSMC 350nm; to give you an idea
how outdated that is: the Pentium Pro (1995) was manufactured in a
350nm process. There obviously still are circuits manufactured in
that process (otherwise the line would have been shut down), but not
new designs.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2021: https://euro.theforth.net/2021

On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 12:55:34 UTC+1, Anton Ertl wrote:
> Jurgen Pitaske <jpit...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 09:14:25 UTC+1, Anton Ertl wrote:
> >> However, he has always used outdated processes (and I remember the
> >> name MOSIS, but not Globalfoundries), so it's not very likely that he
> >> finds problems and solutions that make a difference for a lot of other
> >> products.
> >
> >These were not outdated processes of MOSIS at the time.
> They were many generations behind the leading edge. Such processes
> are usually used for existing, working designs (designed at a time
> when the process was leading edge or close to it), not for new
> designs, so whatever he found out about the process did not help many
> others.
> >Chuck had to use processes that he could afford
> >and that were available for the way he generated the GDSII.
> This may explain, but does not contradict what I wrote.
> >See Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSIS
> >It seems that the MOSIS Website is dead now,
> Works for me, albeit only with JavaScript. They seem to no longer do
> their own manufacturing (if they ever did; I used to think so), but
> currently serve as an intermediary to the big foundries TSMC and
> Globalfoundries; it seems that you can still get very old processes
> from these foundries. MOSIS offers TSMC 350nm; to give you an idea
> how outdated that is: the Pentium Pro (1995) was manufactured in a
> 350nm process. There obviously still are circuits manufactured in
> that process (otherwise the line would have been shut down), but not
> new designs.
> - anton
> --
> M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
> comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
> New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
> EuroForth 2021: https://euro.theforth.net/2021

I am sorry, but your informationn about processes needs some updating I assume.
Processes are there to be used.
If not relevant anymore - they stop to be available.
Chuck had to use what he could afford. And the latest processes where out of reach.
And the volumes ordered did not justify it anyway.

> >Chuck had to use processes that he could afford
> >and that were available for the way he generated the GDSII.
> This may explain, but does not contradict what I wrote.

What you wrote is incorrect and does not change if you introduce a maybe.

If it works your way,
there will be only one latest process per foundty, and everybody can basically throw away the masks with the first delivery,
as it will be superseeded with a newer process when you order next time.
This is not software - this is silicon.

And regarding 350nm - you are basically proving my point - contradicting yours.

On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 13:17:16 UTC+1, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
> On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 12:55:34 UTC+1, Anton Ertl wrote:
> > Jurgen Pitaske <jpit...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >On Saturday, 21 August 2021 at 09:14:25 UTC+1, Anton Ertl wrote:
> > >> However, he has always used outdated processes (and I remember the
> > >> name MOSIS, but not Globalfoundries), so it's not very likely that he
> > >> finds problems and solutions that make a difference for a lot of other
> > >> products.
> > >
> > >These were not outdated processes of MOSIS at the time.
> > They were many generations behind the leading edge. Such processes
> > are usually used for existing, working designs (designed at a time
> > when the process was leading edge or close to it), not for new
> > designs, so whatever he found out about the process did not help many
> > others.
> > >Chuck had to use processes that he could afford
> > >and that were available for the way he generated the GDSII.
> > This may explain, but does not contradict what I wrote.
> > >See Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOSIS
> > >It seems that the MOSIS Website is dead now,
> > Works for me, albeit only with JavaScript. They seem to no longer do
> > their own manufacturing (if they ever did; I used to think so), but
> > currently serve as an intermediary to the big foundries TSMC and
> > Globalfoundries; it seems that you can still get very old processes
> > from these foundries. MOSIS offers TSMC 350nm; to give you an idea
> > how outdated that is: the Pentium Pro (1995) was manufactured in a
> > 350nm process. There obviously still are circuits manufactured in
> > that process (otherwise the line would have been shut down), but not
> > new designs.
> > - anton
> > --
> > M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
> > comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
> > New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
> > EuroForth 2021: https://euro.theforth.net/2021
> I am sorry, but your informationn about processes needs some updating I assume.
> Processes are there to be used.
> If not relevant anymore - they stop to be available.
> Chuck had to use what he could afford. And the latest processes where out of reach.
> And the volumes ordered did not justify it anyway.
> > >Chuck had to use processes that he could afford
> > >and that were available for the way he generated the GDSII.
> > This may explain, but does not contradict what I wrote.
> What you wrote is incorrect and does not change if you introduce a maybe.
>
> If it works your way,
> there will be only one latest process per foundty, and everybody can basically throw away the masks with the first delivery,
> as it will be superseeded with a newer process when you order next time.
> This is not software - this is silicon.
>
> And regarding 350nm - you are basically proving my point - contradicting yours.

It makes an interesting comparison of 2 people who did Forth Processors:

On one side there is Charles H. Moore, who did it all,
including the 144 CPU GA144.

Design system: own and unchecked by others to verify quality
Commercial impact: not known
Applications: not known
Volumes sold: not known
Products manufactured:not known

On the other hand there is Bernd Paysan,
who released the b16 Code at about the same time,
and the Code made available on the Internet
This is not really comparable, but another Forth processor;

Design System: Standard supplier design tools for chip design
Commercial impact: b16 definitely used in commercial volume products
Applications: Seems to be battery control
Volumes sold: must be about 10 000 to 100 000 at least, otherwise not commercially viable

We can only hope,
that the processor IP was paid for well
and is still now,
as there were 2 processor versions used in these commercial applications
according to the Internet, commented by Bernd himself:
https://comp.lang.forth.narkive.com/89qfT2c3/msl16-fpga-forth-processors

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 5:31:22 PM UTC-5, Brad Eckert wrote:
our past. The things Chuck tried to warn us about. Isn't the point of computing to move beyond the structures of the past? Isn't that why he left Forth Inc? Everyone wanted to canonize their

"Standards are a big impediment in the evolution of Forth into Super Forth."
-- Nietzsche

Jurgen Pitaske <jpitaske@gmail.com> writes:
>On the other hand there is Bernd Paysan,
>who released the b16 Code at about the same time,

Bernd Paysan was later. He took inspiration from Chuck Moore's
designs with 5-bit instructions (from MuP20 in 1990 to c18 in 2001).

>Design System: Standard supplier design tools for chip design
>Commercial impact: b16 definitely used in commercial volume products
>Applications: Seems to be battery control

It was used in several products from the company (or sequence of
companies as it was taken over) he worked for. One was Hi-Fi systems
for cars. Later they changed business and developed battery
controllers.

>Volumes sold: must be about 10 000 to 100 000 at least, otherwise not commercially viable

The battery controller was built into hundreds of millions, maybe
billions of smartphones and tablet computers, maybe they are still
using the b16, maybe not. The Hi-Fi application certainly had a much
smaller volume in terms of numbers of CPUs.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2021: https://euro.theforth.net/2021

anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
> [MOSIS] They seem to no longer do their own manufacturing (if they
> ever did; I used to think so), but currently serve as an intermediary
> to the big foundries TSMC and Globalfoundries

MOSIS is an MPW (multi-project wafer) shuttle service and always has
been, afaict. It is an industry-academic consortium that makes a lot of
chips for VLSI design classes in universities, and that sort of thing.
It gathers together chip designs from multiple users, then combines the
designs onto a single wafer, gets the wafers fabbed at wherever
depending on the process, deals with cutting up and packaging the chips
etc.

I don't know whether MOSIS is US-only. cmp.imag.fr is another service
like that, based in France. They have lots of processes available
including some relatively advanced ones.

Google will now do something like this for free for FOSS projects. I
don't remember the specifics. But if you want to make a Forth chip,
here is your chance. Some more info:

https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/03/open_chip_hardware/

On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:46:09 PM UTC-4, Brad Eckert wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 5:32:21 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I believe that much static RAM would consume a fair amount of current. In devices like this power consumption is typically an important detail to control. So it would be useful to learn what the device actually is using.
> That's an interesting thought, but it seems like being performance-oriented they aren't running off batteries. But isn't this a loaded question? Otherwise, why would you start off your response with a non-issue?

Sorry, I have no idea what you are referring to as "a loaded question". Power consumption is not purely an issue when running from batteries. Heat dissipation can also be important. I know much of today's more advanced electronics consider power consumption even when plugged in. Otherwise desktop computing would have been in the kW range by now.

> > "Modern" processors aren't designed to run Forth apps and vice versa. Isn't that the issue being addressed by such chips?
> They are designed to run apps. Apps are CPU coupled to memory. I would imagine "the issue" being addressed has to do with the C programming model.
> Maybe they are philosophically opposed to RISC's overhead of nested calls.. Of course, saving every return address to the stack isn't cheap. Having stacks in memory, definitely not cheap.

Sorry, not following this thought.

> But isn't this a language problem? Now we are penalizing factoring?
> > ADC, DAC and other analog I/Os as well as the many digital peripherals.... that's a big part of the reason. There's a lot of IP amortized in such off the shelf MCUs, not to mention the large code base and tool sets. Even when building a custom chip it is not very common to roll your own CPU to put in it. There has to be a compelling case to support such an investment.
> I would characterize that as an investment in our youth. Of course, there is the sunk cost problem. But, Google (why does it have to be them?) found a way around some of that. eFabless gives your kids (or your inner kid) a playground to just do interesting things in.

Sorry, not following your logic. Creating a new MCU is not inexpensive even ignoring the cost of spinning silicon. An CPU and all the peripherals around it are IP that must be developed, debugged, documented and verified before anyone builds a single chip. It is only the more advanced processes that require significant investment in the actual silicon fabrication.

I don't see how sunk cost enters into the issue unless you have already designed a CPU and surrounding IP and are throwing that away.

> > Not to be snide, but I wasn't aware that GreenArrays proved much of anything with the GA144 except that a CPU chip could be designed that sounded so good and was nearly completely ignored by anyone building products. It is one of the most unrealistic CPUs ever conceived, worse than the RCA 1802 COSMAC. As odd as it was, it has found a home in the space community... somehow.
> Isn't this about where you are personally? Chuck Moore did in fact greatly enrich GlobalFoundries by fixing their broken fab models when it really mattered. The benefits to humanity of Chuck Moore are profound. That is a life well-lived.

Sorry? Are you suggesting the design and fabrication of the GA144 was a charity effort to improve someone's tools for a fab?

Chuck Moore's life achievements should not be conflated with the company GreenArrays. GA has accomplished very little unless there have been advances that I am not aware of.

I'm glad GA built the chip. I just wish they had actually considered a market and attempted to design the chip to address one. The GA144 is a very interesting device, but it was an effort based on the idea of, "build it and they will buy", but they didn't. It got some press at the time and then faded into obscurity.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 1:55:25 pm UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:46:09 PM UTC-4, Brad Eckert wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 5:32:21 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I believe that much static RAM would consume a fair amount of current.. In devices like this power consumption is typically an important detail to control. So it would be useful to learn what the device actually is using..
> > That's an interesting thought, but it seems like being performance-oriented they aren't running off batteries. But isn't this a loaded question? Otherwise, why would you start off your response with a non-issue?

Parasitic memory, capacitance of surface, vlong refresh, high speed, not many transistors, Mr Moore not want to use. He know this, but Ga not do it. Descent size, take up as much as 144 processors. 144 go,1000 new process, big memory, standard outside memory. 144 like little boy, who think it can melt snow, but very small, very could boy, with little pee. 1000 advanced processors, with big memory, like Firetruck, very cold, loose little water, then hose snow. Done.

> Sorry, I have no idea what you are referring to as "a loaded question". Power consumption is not purely an issue when running from batteries. Heat dissipation can also be important. I know much of today's more advanced electronics consider power consumption even when plugged in. Otherwise desktop computing would have been in the kW range by now.
> > > "Modern" processors aren't designed to run Forth apps and vice versa. Isn't that the issue being addressed by such chips?
> > They are designed to run apps. Apps are CPU coupled to memory. I would imagine "the issue" being addressed has to do with the C programming model.
> > Maybe they are philosophically opposed to RISC's overhead of nested calls. Of course, saving every return address to the stack isn't cheap. Having stacks in memory, definitely not cheap.
> Sorry, not following this thought.
> > But isn't this a language problem? Now we are penalizing factoring?
> > > ADC, DAC and other analog I/Os as well as the many digital peripherals... that's a big part of the reason. There's a lot of IP amortized in such off the shelf MCUs, not to mention the large code base and tool sets. Even when building a custom chip it is not very common to roll your own CPU to put in it. There has to be a compelling case to support such an investment.
> > I would characterize that as an investment in our youth. Of course, there is the sunk cost problem. But, Google (why does it have to be them?) found a way around some of that. eFabless gives your kids (or your inner kid) a playground to just do interesting things in.
> Sorry, not following your logic. Creating a new MCU is not inexpensive even ignoring the cost of spinning silicon. An CPU and all the peripherals around it are IP that must be developed, debugged, documented and verified before anyone builds a single chip. It is only the more advanced processes that require significant investment in the actual silicon fabrication.
>
> I don't see how sunk cost enters into the issue unless you have already designed a CPU and surrounding IP and are throwing that away.
> > > Not to be snide, but I wasn't aware that GreenArrays proved much of anything with the GA144 except that a CPU chip could be designed that sounded so good and was nearly completely ignored by anyone building products. It is one of the most unrealistic CPUs ever conceived, worse than the RCA 1802 COSMAC. As odd as it was, it has found a home in the space community... somehow.
> > Isn't this about where you are personally? Chuck Moore did in fact greatly enrich GlobalFoundries by fixing their broken fab models when it really mattered. The benefits to humanity of Chuck Moore are profound. That is a life well-lived.
> Sorry? Are you suggesting the design and fabrication of the GA144 was a charity effort to improve someone's tools for a fab?
>
> Chuck Moore's life achievements should not be conflated with the company GreenArrays. GA has accomplished very little unless there have been advances that I am not aware of.

All trade secret, survive for years on paid work, could be hundreds million in one, we are not supposed to be told.

> I'm glad GA built the chip. I just wish they had actually considered a market and attempted to design the chip to address one. The GA144 is a very interesting device, but it was an effort based on the idea of, "build it and they will buy", but they didn't. It got some press at the time and then faded into obscurity.

Build what need, and they buy. Build what want and they buy. space X, but need better.

But we decide. 6Ghz chip built in France company.

>
> --
>
> Rick C.
>
> -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Monday, 23 August 2021 at 04:55:25 UTC+1, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 20, 2021 at 2:46:09 PM UTC-4, Brad Eckert wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 5:32:21 AM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I believe that much static RAM would consume a fair amount of current.. In devices like this power consumption is typically an important detail to control. So it would be useful to learn what the device actually is using..
> > That's an interesting thought, but it seems like being performance-oriented they aren't running off batteries. But isn't this a loaded question? Otherwise, why would you start off your response with a non-issue?
> Sorry, I have no idea what you are referring to as "a loaded question". Power consumption is not purely an issue when running from batteries. Heat dissipation can also be important. I know much of today's more advanced electronics consider power consumption even when plugged in. Otherwise desktop computing would have been in the kW range by now.
> > > "Modern" processors aren't designed to run Forth apps and vice versa. Isn't that the issue being addressed by such chips?
> > They are designed to run apps. Apps are CPU coupled to memory. I would imagine "the issue" being addressed has to do with the C programming model.
> > Maybe they are philosophically opposed to RISC's overhead of nested calls. Of course, saving every return address to the stack isn't cheap. Having stacks in memory, definitely not cheap.
> Sorry, not following this thought.
> > But isn't this a language problem? Now we are penalizing factoring?
> > > ADC, DAC and other analog I/Os as well as the many digital peripherals... that's a big part of the reason. There's a lot of IP amortized in such off the shelf MCUs, not to mention the large code base and tool sets. Even when building a custom chip it is not very common to roll your own CPU to put in it. There has to be a compelling case to support such an investment.
> > I would characterize that as an investment in our youth. Of course, there is the sunk cost problem. But, Google (why does it have to be them?) found a way around some of that. eFabless gives your kids (or your inner kid) a playground to just do interesting things in.
> Sorry, not following your logic. Creating a new MCU is not inexpensive even ignoring the cost of spinning silicon. An CPU and all the peripherals around it are IP that must be developed, debugged, documented and verified before anyone builds a single chip. It is only the more advanced processes that require significant investment in the actual silicon fabrication.
>
> I don't see how sunk cost enters into the issue unless you have already designed a CPU and surrounding IP and are throwing that away.
> > > Not to be snide, but I wasn't aware that GreenArrays proved much of anything with the GA144 except that a CPU chip could be designed that sounded so good and was nearly completely ignored by anyone building products. It is one of the most unrealistic CPUs ever conceived, worse than the RCA 1802 COSMAC. As odd as it was, it has found a home in the space community... somehow.
> > Isn't this about where you are personally? Chuck Moore did in fact greatly enrich GlobalFoundries by fixing their broken fab models when it really mattered. The benefits to humanity of Chuck Moore are profound. That is a life well-lived.
> Sorry? Are you suggesting the design and fabrication of the GA144 was a charity effort to improve someone's tools for a fab?
>
> Chuck Moore's life achievements should not be conflated with the company GreenArrays. GA has accomplished very little unless there have been advances that I am not aware of.
>
> I'm glad GA built the chip. I just wish they had actually considered a market and attempted to design the chip to address one. The GA144 is a very interesting device, but it was an effort based on the idea of, "build it and they will buy", but they didn't. It got some press at the time and then faded into obscurity.
>
> --
>
> Rick C.
>
> -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

> > Not to be snide, but I wasn't aware that GreenArrays proved much of anything with the GA144 except that a CPU chip could be designed that sounded so good and was nearly completely ignored by anyone building products. It is one of the most unrealistic CPUs ever conceived, worse than the RCA 1802 COSMAC. As odd as it was, it has found a home in the space community... somehow.
> Isn't this about where you are personally? Chuck Moore did in fact greatly enrich GlobalFoundries by fixing their broken fab models when it really mattered. The benefits to humanity of Chuck Moore are profound. That is a life well-lived.

Just to add some of the successes of the good old 1802, as it was not that bad
actually the first CMOS microprocessor worldwide for low power applications especially ... :

If you could afford it, you could drive down the motorway at 150 miles per hour , enabled by the BMW Motronic - 1802 based.

And after your trip you could use your German intelligent phone based on the 1802 - won against the TMS1000.

Or if you had to call from the petrol station, why not use the 1802 based British AGI payphone. Here I actually wrote some test routines for this in addition to the technical support .

Or finding out your next flight details using the French teletext terminal using the VIS system controlled by the 1802.

All of these were just a few between 1979-1984 and in Europe that come to mind,
so there must be a lot more in Europe and the rest of the world,
like the Nordic TELMAC hobby computer
and as we probably all know - ELF.

All of these projects and additional customers needed support to understand this processor,
so I put together and published the BMP802, you find the PDF here,
http://www.exemark.com/CDP1802%20Microprocessor%20IP%20in%20VHDL.htm
and it might be soon part of my bookshelf, as I just got permission to re-publish it here
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Juergen-Pintaske/e/B00N8HVEZM
42 years after the original was published in 1980.

The maker scene then was 1802 and amateur satellite systems AMSAT,
based on the 1802 and Forth,
see https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07SGWCSKT/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i17.
And there was a Forth from Forth INC., to my knowledge the first Forth for Embedded Applications
and an 1802 Forth version from MPE.

And the 1802 group is still very active now as it has been for many years
https://groups.io/g/cosmacelf/message/148

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:17:16 AM UTC-4, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> Just to add some of the successes of the good old 1802, as it was not that bad
> actually the first CMOS microprocessor worldwide for low power applications especially ... :

But that was because it was CMOS, not because it was a good processor.

> If you could afford it, you could drive down the motorway at 150 miles per hour , enabled by the BMW Motronic - 1802 based.

Is that some sort of metric, the fact that when it was new it found it's way into a product? So it did significantly better than the GA144. Not a high bar.

> And after your trip you could use your German intelligent phone based on the 1802 - won against the TMS1000.

The reference point is a 4 bit processor? The bar is getting lower.

> Or if you had to call from the petrol station, why not use the 1802 based British AGI payphone. Here I actually wrote some test routines for this in addition to the technical support .
>
> Or finding out your next flight details using the French teletext terminal using the VIS system controlled by the 1802.
>
> All of these were just a few between 1979-1984 and in Europe that come to mind,
> so there must be a lot more in Europe and the rest of the world,
> like the Nordic TELMAC hobby computer
> and as we probably all know - ELF.

Exactly, while the 8080 was flying off the shelves the 1802 was finding a few crumbs. While CPU/MCUs in general continued to increase capability and speed the 1802 remained stuck in first gear. It's a cute puppy with a brown spot around one eye.

> All of these projects and additional customers needed support to understand this processor,
> so I put together and published the BMP802, you find the PDF here,
> http://www.exemark.com/CDP1802%20Microprocessor%20IP%20in%20VHDL.htm
> and it might be soon part of my bookshelf, as I just got permission to re-publish it here
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Juergen-Pintaske/e/B00N8HVEZM
> 42 years after the original was published in 1980.
>
> The maker scene then was 1802 and amateur satellite systems AMSAT,
> based on the 1802 and Forth,
> see https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07SGWCSKT/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i17.
> And there was a Forth from Forth INC., to my knowledge the first Forth for Embedded Applications
> and an 1802 Forth version from MPE.
>
> And the 1802 group is still very active now as it has been for many years
> https://groups.io/g/cosmacelf/message/148

I would compare that to the Forth community and that's no compliment.

The real claim to fame for the 1802 is simply that they made a rad hard, space qualified version which has flown around the solar system. Otherwise it would be entirely on the scrap heap of processing history along with many other devices that had their day and are no more.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 4:41:43 am UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:17:16 AM UTC-4, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Just to add some of the successes of the good old 1802, as it was not that bad
> > actually the first CMOS microprocessor worldwide for low power applications especially ... :
> But that was because it was CMOS, not because it was a good processor.
> > If you could afford it, you could drive down the motorway at 150 miles per hour , enabled by the BMW Motronic - 1802 based.
> Is that some sort of metric, the fact that when it was new it found it's way into a product? So it did significantly better than the GA144. Not a high bar.
> > And after your trip you could use your German intelligent phone based on the 1802 - won against the TMS1000.
> The reference point is a 4 bit processor? The bar is getting lower.
> > Or if you had to call from the petrol station, why not use the 1802 based British AGI payphone. Here I actually wrote some test routines for this in addition to the technical support .
> >
> > Or finding out your next flight details using the French teletext terminal using the VIS system controlled by the 1802.
> >
> > All of these were just a few between 1979-1984 and in Europe that come to mind,
> > so there must be a lot more in Europe and the rest of the world,
> > like the Nordic TELMAC hobby computer
> > and as we probably all know - ELF.
> Exactly, while the 8080 was flying off the shelves the 1802 was finding a few crumbs. While CPU/MCUs in general continued to increase capability and speed the 1802 remained stuck in first gear. It's a cute puppy with a brown spot around one eye.
> > All of these projects and additional customers needed support to understand this processor,
> > so I put together and published the BMP802, you find the PDF here,
> > http://www.exemark.com/CDP1802%20Microprocessor%20IP%20in%20VHDL.htm
> > and it might be soon part of my bookshelf, as I just got permission to re-publish it here
> > https://www.amazon.co.uk/Juergen-Pintaske/e/B00N8HVEZM
> > 42 years after the original was published in 1980.
> >
> > The maker scene then was 1802 and amateur satellite systems AMSAT,
> > based on the 1802 and Forth,
> > see https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07SGWCSKT/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i17.
> > And there was a Forth from Forth INC., to my knowledge the first Forth for Embedded Applications
> > and an 1802 Forth version from MPE.
> >
> > And the 1802 group is still very active now as it has been for many years
> > https://groups.io/g/cosmacelf/message/148
> I would compare that to the Forth community and that's no compliment.
>
> The real claim to fame for the 1802 is simply that they made a rad hard, space qualified version which has flown around the solar system. Otherwise it would be entirely on the scrap heap of processing history along with many other devices that had their day and are no more.
>
> --
>
> Rick C.

Please, no more evil

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:08:03 PM UTC-4, Fourthy Forth wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 4:41:43 am UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:17:16 AM UTC-4, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Just to add some of the successes of the good old 1802, as it was not that bad
> > > actually the first CMOS microprocessor worldwide for low power applications especially ... :
> > But that was because it was CMOS, not because it was a good processor.
> > > If you could afford it, you could drive down the motorway at 150 miles per hour , enabled by the BMW Motronic - 1802 based.
> > Is that some sort of metric, the fact that when it was new it found it's way into a product? So it did significantly better than the GA144. Not a high bar.
> > > And after your trip you could use your German intelligent phone based on the 1802 - won against the TMS1000.
> > The reference point is a 4 bit processor? The bar is getting lower.
> > > Or if you had to call from the petrol station, why not use the 1802 based British AGI payphone. Here I actually wrote some test routines for this in addition to the technical support .
> > >
> > > Or finding out your next flight details using the French teletext terminal using the VIS system controlled by the 1802.
> > >
> > > All of these were just a few between 1979-1984 and in Europe that come to mind,
> > > so there must be a lot more in Europe and the rest of the world,
> > > like the Nordic TELMAC hobby computer
> > > and as we probably all know - ELF.
> > Exactly, while the 8080 was flying off the shelves the 1802 was finding a few crumbs. While CPU/MCUs in general continued to increase capability and speed the 1802 remained stuck in first gear. It's a cute puppy with a brown spot around one eye.
> > > All of these projects and additional customers needed support to understand this processor,
> > > so I put together and published the BMP802, you find the PDF here,
> > > http://www.exemark.com/CDP1802%20Microprocessor%20IP%20in%20VHDL.htm
> > > and it might be soon part of my bookshelf, as I just got permission to re-publish it here
> > > https://www.amazon.co.uk/Juergen-Pintaske/e/B00N8HVEZM
> > > 42 years after the original was published in 1980.
> > >
> > > The maker scene then was 1802 and amateur satellite systems AMSAT,
> > > based on the 1802 and Forth,
> > > see https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07SGWCSKT/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i17.
> > > And there was a Forth from Forth INC., to my knowledge the first Forth for Embedded Applications
> > > and an 1802 Forth version from MPE.
> > >
> > > And the 1802 group is still very active now as it has been for many years
> > > https://groups.io/g/cosmacelf/message/148
> > I would compare that to the Forth community and that's no compliment.
> >
> > The real claim to fame for the 1802 is simply that they made a rad hard, space qualified version which has flown around the solar system. Otherwise it would be entirely on the scrap heap of processing history along with many other devices that had their day and are no more.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Rick C.
> Please, no more evil

Yes, no more evil indeed!

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 22:29:54 UTC+1, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:08:03 PM UTC-4, Fourthy Forth wrote:
> > On Thursday, 26 August 2021 at 4:41:43 am UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:17:16 AM UTC-4, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Just to add some of the successes of the good old 1802, as it was not that bad
> > > > actually the first CMOS microprocessor worldwide for low power applications especially ... :
> > > But that was because it was CMOS, not because it was a good processor..
> > > > If you could afford it, you could drive down the motorway at 150 miles per hour , enabled by the BMW Motronic - 1802 based.
> > > Is that some sort of metric, the fact that when it was new it found it's way into a product? So it did significantly better than the GA144. Not a high bar.
> > > > And after your trip you could use your German intelligent phone based on the 1802 - won against the TMS1000.
> > > The reference point is a 4 bit processor? The bar is getting lower.
> > > > Or if you had to call from the petrol station, why not use the 1802 based British AGI payphone. Here I actually wrote some test routines for this in addition to the technical support .
> > > >
> > > > Or finding out your next flight details using the French teletext terminal using the VIS system controlled by the 1802.
> > > >
> > > > All of these were just a few between 1979-1984 and in Europe that come to mind,
> > > > so there must be a lot more in Europe and the rest of the world,
> > > > like the Nordic TELMAC hobby computer
> > > > and as we probably all know - ELF.
> > > Exactly, while the 8080 was flying off the shelves the 1802 was finding a few crumbs. While CPU/MCUs in general continued to increase capability and speed the 1802 remained stuck in first gear. It's a cute puppy with a brown spot around one eye.
> > > > All of these projects and additional customers needed support to understand this processor,
> > > > so I put together and published the BMP802, you find the PDF here,
> > > > http://www.exemark.com/CDP1802%20Microprocessor%20IP%20in%20VHDL.htm
> > > > and it might be soon part of my bookshelf, as I just got permission to re-publish it here
> > > > https://www.amazon.co.uk/Juergen-Pintaske/e/B00N8HVEZM
> > > > 42 years after the original was published in 1980.
> > > >
> > > > The maker scene then was 1802 and amateur satellite systems AMSAT,
> > > > based on the 1802 and Forth,
> > > > see https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07SGWCSKT/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i17.
> > > > And there was a Forth from Forth INC., to my knowledge the first Forth for Embedded Applications
> > > > and an 1802 Forth version from MPE.
> > > >
> > > > And the 1802 group is still very active now as it has been for many years
> > > > https://groups.io/g/cosmacelf/message/148
> > > I would compare that to the Forth community and that's no compliment.
> > >
> > > The real claim to fame for the 1802 is simply that they made a rad hard, space qualified version which has flown around the solar system. Otherwise it would be entirely on the scrap heap of processing history along with many other devices that had their day and are no more.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Rick C.
> > Please, no more evil
> Yes, no more evil indeed!
>
> --
>
> Rick C.
>
> +- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> +- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

What you basically stated:

The HW and SW designers at BMW were idiots to use the 1802 - and obviously their management.
The same statement you meant regarding the other examples I used.
Obviously the RCA team were incompetent to design and manufacture the 1802 and IOs in the first place.

So the same you would probably state about the people who pay you.
Are they aware of this?
Might be worth a post on LinkedIN.

How arrogant can one person be? You are definitely a great example.

One evil person like you is definitely enough here.

Fortunately your knowledge is in PC104 and not in Forth as you state yourself.
http://www.arius.com/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/ariusinc/

Related to Forth from LinkedIN:

Rick Collins
Electrical Engineering Design and Production Services

I use Forth very intermittently.
So I have to relearn it for nearly every project.
Often it is hard to read my own code a year later.

Reply
See profile for Paul Bennett IEng MIET
Paul Bennett IEng MIET

Systems Engineer at HIDECS Consultancy

As they say, "practice makes perfect" and like anything, practicing helps with keeping it in mind.

Forth is strange to many, but if you know words and numbers, then you are at least half way there. Numbers are parameters that are placed on the stack.. Words are named functions that work on items on the stack, consuming or depositing numbers during their performance. Words reside in the dictionary. You can extend teh system by adding new functions (words) into the dictionary. Some of the functions already in teh dictionary will assist in doing that compilation.

As for making it easier to read your code many years later, always include comments that explain what and how a word functions.

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 5:29:54 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:08:03 PM UTC-4, Fourthy Forth wrote:
> > Please, no more evil
> Yes, no more evil indeed!

Wow! I used to think Hugh was the only real nutter here and others were whipped into a frenzy by his insanity. Clearly there are others who don't know how to have a civil discourse so as to discuss a topic rationally and can be every bit as insane as Hugh. I've made excuses for some, but clearly I was wrong in doing that. I don't even want to reply to his post as he may see that as an attack like Hugh does.

What can I say? Each of our posts speak for ourselves.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Thursday, August 26, 2021 at 12:07:10 PM UTC-7, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 5:29:54 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 4:08:03 PM UTC-4, Fourthy Forth wrote:
> > > Please, no more evil
> > Yes, no more evil indeed!
> Wow! I used to think Hugh was the only real nutter here and others were whipped into a frenzy by his insanity. Clearly there are others who don't know how to have a civil discourse so as to discuss a topic rationally and can be every bit as insane as Hugh. I've made excuses for some, but clearly I was wrong in doing that. I don't even want to reply to his post as he may see that as an attack like Hugh does.
>
> What can I say? Each of our posts speak for ourselves.

This post really speaks for itself --- TROLL!
Rick Collins is making an unprovoked attack against me in the hopes of getting an angry response.
He is also making an attack on the RCA 1802 processor in the hopes of getting an angry response.
Nobody has an emotional investment in any of this, so he won't get his desired angry response.

I had to look up the RCA 1802 on Wikipedia to get an overview. It seems somewhat quirky.
Quirky processors are part of micro-controller programming. On a scale of 1 to 10, the
MiniForth was a 10 --- the RCA 1802 was maybe 5, the 8051 4, the 6502 or Z80 were a 3,
the MC68000 was a 2 (having separate address and data registers), the 8086 was a 2
(having segment registers), the ARM was a 2 (conditional hops), the MSP430 or PIC24 is a 1, etc..

If you can't handle a quirky ISA, just become a C programmer and ignore efficiency.

On Thursday, 5 August 2021 at 13:29:45 UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On 5 Aug 2021 at 06:46:41 BST, "Brad Eckert" <hwf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps Forthers treat programming the way the French treat food. Would that
> > make C the equivalent of English cuisine?
> Please, USAnian cuisine - lots of fat and sugar.
>
> Stephen

As Christmas is close - is there any news regarding this processor system?

After all of the news that Greg gave us on zoom recently - the race is on ...

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 7:49:54 AM UTC-4, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> An MPE client is currently designing a new dual-stack machine. The
> predicted performance is 6 GHz (instructions per second). 40 CPUs
> occupy less than 1 sqare mm.
>
> It's for real, and they have a paying client for it.
>
> Depending on life, there may be more information at EuroForth 21 in
> Rome in September. I have my EU Covid passport already.

Yeah, Life! So 4000 of these CPUs would fit a 1 cm square chip which could be used to implement a real time (or faster than real time) implementation of the game of Life.

Was anything presented at EuroForth? I assume not since we didn't hear about it. I'm wondering what the app is and how the chip differs from the GA device. I assume since it has an application it won't have the same "lack of purpose" limitations?

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 29 Nov 2021 at 16:45:52 CET, "Jurgen Pitaske" <jpitaske@gmail.com> wrote:

> As Christmas is close - is there any news regarding this processor system?
>
> After all of the news that Greg gave us on zoom recently - the race is on ...

I would love to say more, but we're under an NDA.

Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephen@vfxforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, +44 (0)78 0390 3612, +34 649 662 974
http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

On Wednesday, 1 December 2021 at 11:37:44 UTC, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2021 at 16:45:52 CET, "Jurgen Pitaske" <jpit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As Christmas is close - is there any news regarding this processor system?
> >
> > After all of the news that Greg gave us on zoom recently - the race is on ...
> I would love to say more, but we're under an NDA.
>
> Stephen
> --
> Stephen Pelc, ste...@vfxforth.com
> MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
> 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
> tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, +44 (0)78 0390 3612, +34 649 662 974
> http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

I am still under a few NDAs from the past - so I know.

Could your customer at least agree to give a rough year / quarter when there is some news?
This would stop nagging here.
Your first post was in July 2021, so a rough guess would be 6 months for design, and the 6 months to get first silicon - so more news middle of next year?

On 1 Dec 2021 at 14:46:02 CET, "Jurgen Pitaske" <jpitaske@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am still under a few NDAs from the past - so I know.
>
> Could your customer at least agree to give a rough year / quarter when there
> is some news?
> This would stop nagging here.
> Your first post was in July 2021, so a rough guess would be 6 months for
> design, and the 6 months to get first silicon - so more news middle of next
> year?

You make a reasonable assumption, but to quote Sir Humphrey, "I couldn't
possibly comment".

Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, stephen@vfxforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, +44 (0)78 0390 3612, +34 649 662 974
http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 7:04:20 AM UTC-4, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2021 at 14:46:02 CET, "Jurgen Pitaske" <jpit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am still under a few NDAs from the past - so I know.
> >
> > Could your customer at least agree to give a rough year / quarter when there
> > is some news?
> > This would stop nagging here.
> > Your first post was in July 2021, so a rough guess would be 6 months for
> > design, and the 6 months to get first silicon - so more news middle of next
> > year?
> You make a reasonable assumption, but to quote Sir Humphrey, "I couldn't
> possibly comment".

But I thought you just did!

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:17:01 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 7:49:54 AM UTC-4, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > An MPE client is currently designing a new dual-stack machine. The
> > predicted performance is 6 GHz (instructions per second). 40 CPUs
> > occupy less than 1 sqare mm.
> >
> > It's for real, and they have a paying client for it.
> >
> > Depending on life, there may be more information at EuroForth 21 in
> > Rome in September. I have my EU Covid passport already.
>
> Yeah, Life! So 4000 of these CPUs would fit a 1 cm square chip which could be used to implement a real time (or faster than real time) implementation of the game of Life.
>
> Was anything presented at EuroForth? I assume not since we didn't hear about it. I'm wondering what the app is and how the chip differs from the GA device. I assume since it has an application it won't have the same "lack of purpose" limitations?
>
> --
>
> Rick C.
>
> --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> --- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

I've posted on the YouTube video, about the QDCA, researchers starting to talk about 10's of terahertz in future, playing with the clocking, which is what I was planning on doing. The ock stabilisation mechanism greatly slow it down. But, they already are making other advances. Magnetic Quantum Dot Cellular Automata, was the only technology that fit GA's immediate goals and fab problems. But it all was work, they could have done a decade before last to run at their current speeds at a fraction of the energy. This means a million processors at 64 bits all running equivalent to 500mhz plus, was a possibility. There would be a heap of back ground applications and IOT for that sort of technology scaled up or down.

But, GA is not producing anything but specialist application. At this stage, it doesn't matter because it's not for us. Bring on 6Ghz, 60Ghz. If it was MQDCA, it could do that at a lot less energy than the GA. People seem to irrationally focus on the will the way, when it's the figuring out, the way. This was something they could have spent time on figuring out. The technology they are using, is end life technology, and not too much interesting as this, which was a beginning life technology. It's just a shame things didn't work out, as 500mhz, was not sexy, but practical. Just that M/QD has much wider potential due to the near perfect efficiency power consumption. You should be able to 3D print them. Though it is not ideal, it hopefully will be practical.

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 11:54:48 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 2:17:01 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 7:49:54 AM UTC-4, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > > An MPE client is currently designing a new dual-stack machine. The
> > > predicted performance is 6 GHz (instructions per second). 40 CPUs
> > > occupy less than 1 sqare mm.
> > >
> > > It's for real, and they have a paying client for it.
> > >
> > > Depending on life, there may be more information at EuroForth 21 in
> > > Rome in September. I have my EU Covid passport already.
> >
> > Yeah, Life! So 4000 of these CPUs would fit a 1 cm square chip which could be used to implement a real time (or faster than real time) implementation of the game of Life.
> >
> > Was anything presented at EuroForth? I assume not since we didn't hear about it. I'm wondering what the app is and how the chip differs from the GA device. I assume since it has an application it won't have the same "lack of purpose" limitations?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Rick C.
> >
> > --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> > --- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
> I've posted on the YouTube video, about the QDCA, researchers starting to talk about 10's of terahertz in future, playing with the clocking, which is what I was planning on doing. The ock stabilisation mechanism greatly slow it down. But, they already are making other advances. Magnetic Quantum Dot Cellular Automata, was the only technology that fit GA's immediate goals and fab problems. But it all was work, they could have done a decade before last to run at their current speeds at a fraction of the energy. This means a million processors at 64 bits all running equivalent to 500mhz plus, was a possibility. There would be a heap of back ground applications and IOT for that sort of technology scaled up or down.
>
> But, GA is not producing anything but specialist application. At this stage, it doesn't matter because it's not for us. Bring on 6Ghz, 60Ghz. If it was MQDCA, it could do that at a lot less energy than the GA. People seem to irrationally focus on the will the way, when it's the figuring out, the way. This was something they could have spent time on figuring out. The technology they are using, is end life technology, and not too much interesting as this, which was a beginning life technology. It's just a shame things didn't work out, as 500mhz, was not sexy, but practical. Just that M/QD has much wider potential due to the near perfect efficiency power consumption. You should be able to 3D print them. Though it is not ideal, it hopefully will be practical.

Yeah, that's stack machines for you. Lots and lots of research, but no one is designing them to be used to solve applications problems. The GA144 was a technology that required a solution to how to use it before anyone could consider what apps it might be used for. In other words, it was a solution looking for a problem and never really found a good match.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Wayne morellini <waynemorellini@gmail.com> writes:
> Magnetic Quantum Dot Cellular Automata, was the only technology that
> fit GA's immediate goals and fab problems.

I don't think anyone has made a microprocessor from quantum dots, I
don't see stack architectures as being especially suited or unsuited for
them, and my impression is that GA's chip worked as intended using
conventional fab techniques. It just didn't solve a problem that
couldn't be handled by more conventional means.

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 7:38:05 PM UTC+10, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Wayne morellini <waynemo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Magnetic Quantum Dot Cellular Automata, was the only technology that
> > fit GA's immediate goals and fab problems.
> I don't think anyone has made a microprocessor from quantum dots, I
> don't see stack architectures as being especially suited or unsuited for
> them, and my impression is that GA's chip worked as intended using
> conventional fab techniques. It just didn't solve a problem that
> couldn't be handled by more conventional means.

Yes, I don't think I ever heard of such a thing. After the 500 MHz limitation, everything went quiet, except for fpga work with the occasional talk about it coming out, but I never found those either (I would see an new article, then try to find it again, not to be able to relocate it). But, FPGA is a lot faster than that too now. But, you literally could fit in maybe 1 million more circuitry for the same peak energy load (though that's really old figures and maybe it's a lot lower in real life). People were probably interested in speed. But, magnetic computing is one of the main end technologies in computing. I had hoped to get closer to 1-2Thz. These guys are talking about 10's of Thz. You max out most applications. But, I see no reason that it doesn't suit a stack machine. But with the brain damage now, I'm missing something.

You can basically make such a test processor out of ping pong balls wires and magnets. It's one of the test sample technologies in the book "Design and Test of Digital Circuits by Quantum Dot Cellular Automata", by Fabrizio Lombardi and Jing Huang, I have on my book shelf in front of me. Now, that's an interesting one to teach processor design to high school students. To see something like that in action with the balls swinging around.