Rolf Hemmerling posted this in different Forth facebook groups:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/PROGRAMMINGFORTH

Forth2020
orSepgtateumbemgri 28 oat 2:or52e PugdM ·
🥳Great news for our next Zoom meeting October 9. ! WOW ! Please share with more Forth friends on different channels. We will have the great presentations and super interesting themes as ever. Join &participate ->https://www.facebook.com/groups/forth2020

It is scheduled that my Forth2020 Facebook group will have a zoom meeting with "Chuck", what an honor!
Oh sorry folks, not "Chuck Norris", but "Charles (Chuck) Moore", the creator of the Forth programming language, 50 years ago 🙂
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=170644201881192&id=100123365599943

If talking to God were the same as Him listening it would be Heaven.

On Friday, 1 October 2021 at 09:34:47 UTC+1, dxforth wrote:
> If talking to God were the same as Him listening it would be Heaven.

are you serious or sarcastic?

On 2021-10-01, dxforth <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:
> If talking to God were the same as Him listening it would be Heaven.
Well, to worship, to bow, to someone, is to make him GOD, literally.
You just pick person, or some idol and go for it :P

--

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!

пятница, 1 октября 2021 г. в 16:05:08 UTC+3, Branimir Maksimovic:
> On 2021-10-01, dxforth <dxf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If talking to God were the same as Him listening it would be Heaven.
> Well, to worship, to bow, to someone, is to make him GOD, literally.
> You just pick person, or some idol and go for it :P
>
> --
>
> 7-77-777
> Evil Sinner!

I wrote here making Moore a god is a bad idea. I'm doubt Moore personally
need this kind of worship. Also, Forth is so simple like a fire or a wheel. Will we
listen a prehistoric wheel inventor carefully to make a new sportcar? :)

On 2021-10-02, Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote:
> пятница, 1 октября 2021 г. в 16:05:08 UTC+3, Branimir Maksimovic:
>> On 2021-10-01, dxforth <dxf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > If talking to God were the same as Him listening it would be Heaven.
>> Well, to worship, to bow, to someone, is to make him GOD, literally.
>> You just pick person, or some idol and go for it :P
>>
>> --
>>
>> 7-77-777
>> Evil Sinner!
>
> I wrote here making Moore a god is a bad idea. I'm doubt Moore personally
> need this kind of worship. Also, Forth is so simple like a fire or a wheel. Will we
> listen a prehistoric wheel inventor carefully to make a new sportcar? :)
Well, I want to prove that Forth is most natural programmer language,
just to recall my rusty memory :P

--

7-77-777
Evil Sinner!
to weak you should be meek, and you should brainfuck stronger
https://github.com/rofl0r/chaos-pp

On 3/10/2021 10:36, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
> пятница, 1 октября 2021 г. в 16:05:08 UTC+3, Branimir Maksimovic:
>> On 2021-10-01, dxforth <dxf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > If talking to God were the same as Him listening it would be Heaven.
>> Well, to worship, to bow, to someone, is to make him GOD, literally.
>> You just pick person, or some idol and go for it :P
>>
>> --
>>
>> 7-77-777
>> Evil Sinner!
>
> I wrote here making Moore a god is a bad idea. I'm doubt Moore personally
> need this kind of worship. Also, Forth is so simple like a fire or a wheel. Will we
> listen a prehistoric wheel inventor carefully to make a new sportcar? :)
>

The sports car has yet to leave the drawing board as the designers are
still arguing over features.

On Sunday, 3 October 2021 at 05:06:58 UTC+1, dxforth wrote:
> On 3/10/2021 10:36, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
> > пятница, 1 октября 2021 г. в 16:05:08 UTC+3, Branimir Maksimovic:
> >> On 2021-10-01, dxforth <dxf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > If talking to God were the same as Him listening it would be Heaven.
> >> Well, to worship, to bow, to someone, is to make him GOD, literally.
> >> You just pick person, or some idol and go for it :P
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> 7-77-777
> >> Evil Sinner!
> >
> > I wrote here making Moore a god is a bad idea. I'm doubt Moore personally
> > need this kind of worship. Also, Forth is so simple like a fire or a wheel. Will we
> > listen a prehistoric wheel inventor carefully to make a new sportcar? :)
> >
> The sports car has yet to leave the drawing board as the designers are
> still arguing over features.

Well, some sportscars using this motor have landed on various planets / ateroids of our solar system already
- which other ones invented and implemented by one person have?
Let them discuss other features of such racing cars - it does not change the achievents.
We can all play with software, hardware - even ASICs nowadays - so let them have fun.
And if something successful emerges, even better.

воскресенье, 3 октября 2021 г. в 07:06:58 UTC+3, dxforth:
> On 3/10/2021 10:36, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
> > пятница, 1 октября 2021 г. в 16:05:08 UTC+3, Branimir Maksimovic:
> >> On 2021-10-01, dxforth <dxf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > If talking to God were the same as Him listening it would be Heaven.
> >> Well, to worship, to bow, to someone, is to make him GOD, literally.
> >> You just pick person, or some idol and go for it :P
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> 7-77-777
> >> Evil Sinner!
> >
> > I wrote here making Moore a god is a bad idea. I'm doubt Moore personally
> > need this kind of worship. Also, Forth is so simple like a fire or a wheel. Will we
> > listen a prehistoric wheel inventor carefully to make a new sportcar? :)
> >
> The sports car has yet to leave the drawing board as the designers are
> still arguing over features.

Yes, it is very important to make wheels from Lebanese cedar, because
it was written by the inventors of the wheel. It also makes all wheels
compatible. :)

On 03/10/2021 14:31, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
> воскресенье, 3 октября 2021 г. в 07:06:58 UTC+3, dxforth:
>> On 3/10/2021 10:36, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
>>> пятница, 1 октября 2021 г. в 16:05:08 UTC+3, Branimir Maksimovic:
>>>> On 2021-10-01, dxforth <dxf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> If talking to God were the same as Him listening it would be Heaven.
>>>> Well, to worship, to bow, to someone, is to make him GOD, literally.
>>>> You just pick person, or some idol and go for it :P
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> 7-77-777
>>>> Evil Sinner!
>>>
>>> I wrote here making Moore a god is a bad idea. I'm doubt Moore personally
>>> need this kind of worship. Also, Forth is so simple like a fire or a wheel. Will we
>>> listen a prehistoric wheel inventor carefully to make a new sportcar? :)
>>>
>> The sports car has yet to leave the drawing board as the designers are
>> still arguing over features.
>
> Yes, it is very important to make wheels from Lebanese cedar, because
> it was written by the inventors of the wheel. It also makes all wheels
> compatible. :)

You clearly never did woodworking! Cedar is terrible for wheels... :)

> > Yes, it is very important to make wheels from Lebanese cedar, because
> > it was written by the inventors of the wheel. It also makes all wheels
> > compatible. :)
> You clearly never did woodworking! Cedar is terrible for wheels... :)

I did :D :D :D 16-bit stack and no floating point is terrible for programming :)

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 10:10:03 AM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
> > > Yes, it is very important to make wheels from Lebanese cedar, because
> > > it was written by the inventors of the wheel. It also makes all wheels
> > > compatible. :)
> > You clearly never did woodworking! Cedar is terrible for wheels... :)
> I did :D :D :D 16-bit stack and no floating point is terrible for programming :)

The MiniForth had a 16-bit stack and no floating point.
The MiniForth didn't even have an instruction for doing a 16-bit integer addition.
Addition was done with a lengthy primitive that used 4-bit half-adders and XOR;
this was they only general-purpose primitive that I didn't write (because I didn't
understand addition very well, although I could have figured it out given more time).

At that time (1995) the competition in the laser-etching business used an MC68K
board programmed in C. The MiniForth built on a Lattice isp1048 PLD with an
8032 coprocessor was both faster and less expensive. I'm proud of my accomplishment
in writing MFX (assembler, simulator and Forth cross-compiler) although Tom Hart
now says that this was done long before I showed up and I had nothing to do with it.

Ilya: Please define what "terrible" means in regard to programming.
A lot of processors are successful despite being very quirky --- making the programmer's
life easy is not generally the primary priority in processor design --- this has little
to do with success, especially on a processor for which only one program will be written.

BTW: In regard to wheels, it is idiotic nonsense to believe that stone-age people
invented the cart-wheel. Stone-age people invented the pottery wheel. This is easy
because the axle is vertical. The axle is about two inches long and it sits in a
hole chipped out of the surface of a flat rock. The hole gets packed with animal fat
and the pottery wheel can spin all day without needing repacking of grease.
The cart-wheel wasn't invented until the bronze-age because the axle is horizontal
and so you need a bearing to keep the grease from falling out the side. The bearing
obviously has to be made out of bronze. I've read a lot about prehistory so I know
something about the subject --- it annoys me when idiots on the internet talk about
subjects that they don't know anything about --- any subject!

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 11:58:28 AM UTC-7, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> The MiniForth had a 16-bit stack and no floating point.
> The MiniForth didn't even have an instruction for doing a 16-bit integer addition.
> Addition was done with a lengthy primitive that used 4-bit half-adders and XOR;
> this was they only general-purpose primitive that I didn't write (because I didn't
> understand addition very well, although I could have figured it out given more time).

I should also mention that none of the instructions had an operand.
The only addressing mode available was inherent.
Also, the only way to change the PC was with the NXT instruction; there were no jumps.
That makes the programmer's life difficult!
There are only three programmers who program in MFX assembly-language
which are myself (and I wrote the assembler), John Hart and Steve Brault.
I was well aware at the time that nobody else would ever learn MFX assembly
because it is too difficult --- MFX assembly-language is really mind-blowing
for your average programmer accustomed to the x86 or MC68K or whatever.
This is despite the fact that I made the assembly-language as easy as possible,
in that the assembler did the out-of-ordering of the instructions internally and
the programmer could just write his assembly-language source-code as if
the instructions were executed sequentially in the same order that they
appeared in the source-code (in truth, up to five instructions could execute
concurrently in a single clock cycle).

God himself would likely shit his pants trying to learn MFX assembly-language.

> At that time (1995) the competition in the laser-etching business used an MC68K
> board programmed in C. The MiniForth built on a Lattice isp1048 PLD with an
> 8032 coprocessor was both faster and less expensive. I'm proud of my accomplishment
> in writing MFX (assembler, simulator and Forth cross-compiler) although Tom Hart
> now says that this was done long before I showed up and I had nothing to do with it.

They phrase is 'at that time'. Since computer science is moving forward, we need to review
at least fundamental features of language. Forth is a stack-based language, not a language for 16-bit
CPUs, not a language without floating point, not a language with vocabulary stack, counted
strings etc etc. There are fundamental principes and actual solutions for today.
> Ilya: Please define what "terrible" means in regard to programming.

This is Ron Aaron's term, not mine :)

> A lot of processors are successful despite being very quirky --- making the programmer's
> life easy is not generally the primary priority in processor design --- this has little
> to do with success, especially on a processor for which only one program will be written.

Forth may be used for a wide range of architectures. Widening application domain is better
than limiting by what Moore thinks about Forth.

> BTW: In regard to wheels, it is idiotic nonsense to believe that stone-age people
> invented the cart-wheel. Stone-age people invented the pottery wheel. This is easy
> because the axle is vertical. The axle is about two inches long and it sits in a
> hole chipped out of the surface of a flat rock. The hole gets packed with animal fat
> and the pottery wheel can spin all day without needing repacking of grease.
> The cart-wheel wasn't invented until the bronze-age because the axle is horizontal
> and so you need a bearing to keep the grease from falling out the side. The bearing
> obviously has to be made out of bronze. I've read a lot about prehistory so I know
> something about the subject --- it annoys me when idiots on the internet talk about
> subjects that they don't know anything about --- any subject!

There is no proved information, but cart wheels are about 4000-5000 years B.C., possibly
Egypt, Caucasus, Romania or so. Anyway, old inventions are not a complete step-by-step
guide for actual designs. You may choose prehistoric or just ancient inventor - they are
both not eligible to lead engineering team today.

On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 1:21:15 PM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
> > At that time (1995) the competition in the laser-etching business used an MC68K
> > board programmed in C. The MiniForth built on a Lattice isp1048 PLD with an
> > 8032 coprocessor was both faster and less expensive. I'm proud of my accomplishment
> > in writing MFX (assembler, simulator and Forth cross-compiler) although Tom Hart
> > now says that this was done long before I showed up and I had nothing to do with it.
> They phrase is 'at that time'.

Yes --- at that time, the MiniForth had great potential --- those days are past.
At that time, speed was a major issue. The MC68K was too slow for a lot of applications,
but the faster processors were too expensive, so the MiniForth was in the: "sweet spot."
Now the ARM Cortex is faster than necessary for running a motion-control board,
and it is pretty inexpensive, so it is adequate for all but the most extraordinary needs.

If there is a "sweet spot" for DIY processors now, it is likely one of these:
1.) high-end: Multi-core, such as your FPGA boards.
2.) low-end: Single-core with low interrupt latency and low power-consumption.

The middle mundane part of the spectrum, such as motion-control boards
for laser-etchers, is pretty well covered by mainstream processors.

> > BTW: In regard to wheels, it is idiotic nonsense to believe that stone-age people
> > invented the cart-wheel. Stone-age people invented the pottery wheel. This is easy
> > because the axle is vertical. The axle is about two inches long and it sits in a
> > hole chipped out of the surface of a flat rock. The hole gets packed with animal fat
> > and the pottery wheel can spin all day without needing repacking of grease.
> > The cart-wheel wasn't invented until the bronze-age because the axle is horizontal
> > and so you need a bearing to keep the grease from falling out the side. The bearing
> > obviously has to be made out of bronze. I've read a lot about prehistory so I know
> > something about the subject --- it annoys me when idiots on the internet talk about
> > subjects that they don't know anything about --- any subject!
> There is no proved information, but cart wheels are about 4000-5000 years B.C., possibly
> Egypt, Caucasus, Romania or so. Anyway, old inventions are not a complete step-by-step
> guide for actual designs. You may choose prehistoric or just ancient inventor - they are
> both not eligible to lead engineering team today.

4000 to 5000 years ago is the Bronze Age.

Anyway, I understand your point that old inventions are not a good guide for modern technology
even if the modern technology is derived from the old invention --- technology changes.

On 4/10/2021 05:58, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>
> BTW: In regard to wheels, it is idiotic nonsense to believe that stone-age people
> invented the cart-wheel. Stone-age people invented the pottery wheel. This is easy
> because the axle is vertical. The axle is about two inches long and it sits in a
> hole chipped out of the surface of a flat rock. The hole gets packed with animal fat
> and the pottery wheel can spin all day without needing repacking of grease.
> The cart-wheel wasn't invented until the bronze-age because the axle is horizontal
> and so you need a bearing to keep the grease from falling out the side. The bearing
> obviously has to be made out of bronze. I've read a lot about prehistory so I know
> something about the subject --- it annoys me when idiots on the internet talk about
> subjects that they don't know anything about --- any subject!

We understood the metaphor. Any idiot on the internet can google. I've done it
myself.

On 4/10/2021 06:46, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>
> God himself would likely shit his pants trying to learn MFX assembly-language.

Despite all the bad he's done he still gets a great reference. Perhaps
the secret lies in telling people what they want to hear.

On 03/10/2021 20:10, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
>
>>> Yes, it is very important to make wheels from Lebanese cedar, because
>>> it was written by the inventors of the wheel. It also makes all wheels
>>> compatible. :)
>> You clearly never did woodworking! Cedar is terrible for wheels... :)
>
> I did :D :D :D 16-bit stack and no floating point is terrible for programming :)

Heh. Well, if all you've got is a 16-bit processor or cedar logs...

On 4/10/2021 15:42, Ron AARON wrote:
>
>
> On 03/10/2021 20:10, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, it is very important to make wheels from Lebanese cedar, because
>>>> it was written by the inventors of the wheel. It also makes all wheels
>>>> compatible. :)
>>> You clearly never did woodworking! Cedar is terrible for wheels... :)
>>
>> I did :D :D :D 16-bit stack and no floating point is terrible for programming :)
>
> Heh. Well, if all you've got is a 16-bit processor or cedar logs...

Don't you mean 32-bits? Speaking of running jokes:

'Forth is a language even its users feel compelled to modify.'

> > I did :D :D :D 16-bit stack and no floating point is terrible for programming :)
> Heh. Well, if all you've got is a 16-bit processor or cedar logs...

Several of my CPU cores are highly parameterizable, so I can synthesize 8-128
bits CPU from the same source. Datawidth is just a parameter. Technology
is changing. New hardware requires new software and vise verca. Some
Moore's solutions were temporary, based on the current situation and hardware
features. Let Moore take some rest now, he is not an eternal source of revelations.

On Sunday, 3 October 2021 at 20:46:46 UTC+1, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 11:58:28 AM UTC-7, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> > The MiniForth had a 16-bit stack and no floating point.
> > The MiniForth didn't even have an instruction for doing a 16-bit integer addition.
> > Addition was done with a lengthy primitive that used 4-bit half-adders and XOR;
> > this was they only general-purpose primitive that I didn't write (because I didn't
> > understand addition very well, although I could have figured it out given more time).
> I should also mention that none of the instructions had an operand.
> The only addressing mode available was inherent.
> Also, the only way to change the PC was with the NXT instruction; there were no jumps.
> That makes the programmer's life difficult!
> There are only three programmers who program in MFX assembly-language
> which are myself (and I wrote the assembler), John Hart and Steve Brault.
> I was well aware at the time that nobody else would ever learn MFX assembly
> because it is too difficult --- MFX assembly-language is really mind-blowing
> for your average programmer accustomed to the x86 or MC68K or whatever.
> This is despite the fact that I made the assembly-language as easy as possible,
> in that the assembler did the out-of-ordering of the instructions internally and
> the programmer could just write his assembly-language source-code as if
> the instructions were executed sequentially in the same order that they
> appeared in the source-code (in truth, up to five instructions could execute
> concurrently in a single clock cycle).
>
> God himself would likely shit his pants trying to learn MFX assembly-language.

well, as Einstein said:

Albert Einstein Quotes
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

On Monday, October 4, 2021 at 3:33:51 AM UTC-7, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, 3 October 2021 at 20:46:46 UTC+1, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 11:58:28 AM UTC-7, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> > > The MiniForth had a 16-bit stack and no floating point.
> > > The MiniForth didn't even have an instruction for doing a 16-bit integer addition.
> > > Addition was done with a lengthy primitive that used 4-bit half-adders and XOR;
> > > this was they only general-purpose primitive that I didn't write (because I didn't
> > > understand addition very well, although I could have figured it out given more time).
> > I should also mention that none of the instructions had an operand.
> > The only addressing mode available was inherent.
> > Also, the only way to change the PC was with the NXT instruction; there were no jumps.
> > That makes the programmer's life difficult!
> > There are only three programmers who program in MFX assembly-language
> > which are myself (and I wrote the assembler), John Hart and Steve Brault.
> > I was well aware at the time that nobody else would ever learn MFX assembly
> > because it is too difficult --- MFX assembly-language is really mind-blowing
> > for your average programmer accustomed to the x86 or MC68K or whatever.
> > This is despite the fact that I made the assembly-language as easy as possible,
> > in that the assembler did the out-of-ordering of the instructions internally and
> > the programmer could just write his assembly-language source-code as if
> > the instructions were executed sequentially in the same order that they
> > appeared in the source-code (in truth, up to five instructions could execute
> > concurrently in a single clock cycle).
> >
> > God himself would likely shit his pants trying to learn MFX assembly-language.
> well, as Einstein said:
>
> Albert Einstein Quotes
> If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

I wrote MFX entirely by myself, and the design was entirely my own.
I invented the algorithm for out-of-ordering the instructions to pack them into
the opcodes with a minimum number of NOP instructions while still guaranteeing
that the user's program did the same thing as it would have done if the
instructions had been assembled sequentially one-per-opcode in the same
order that they appeared in the user's source-code --- I did everything in MFX
except write the function to do 16-bit addition, which was done by Steve Brault,
but I don't think that excludes me from claiming MFX to be my software.

Juergen Pintaske is endlessly telling the same lie, saying that I didn't write
MFX and that I don't even understand how MFX works.
He is so relentless in telling this lie that I suspect that the liar Tom Hart
is paying him to tell this lie over and over again --- Juergen Pintaske has been
hired on at Testra to do their marketing!

On 07/10/2021 6:07, Hugh Aguilar wrote:

> I wrote MFX entirely by myself, and the design was entirely my own.
> I invented the algorithm for out-of-ordering the instructions to pack them into
> the opcodes with a minimum number of NOP instructions while still guaranteeing
> that the user's program did the same thing as it would have done if the
> instructions had been assembled sequentially one-per-opcode in the same
> order that they appeared in the user's source-code --- I did everything in MFX
> except write the function to do 16-bit addition, which was done by Steve Brault,
> but I don't think that excludes me from claiming MFX to be my software.

Bravo, Hugh! That was doubtless a major achievement. But why in hell do
you keep reiterating the stories of your glory days with MFX?

It would be like me continually retelling how back in the day I wrote a
TSR program for a (then) major SW company, entirely in 8086
assembly-language, by myself, and invented several cool techniques.

Nobody cares any more, that's ancient history. What have you done *lately*?

On Friday, 1 October 2021 at 07:38:04 UTC+1, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
> Rolf Hemmerling posted this in different Forth facebook groups:
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/PROGRAMMINGFORTH
>
> Forth2020
> orSepgtateumbemgri 28 oat 2:or52e PugdM ·
> 🥳Great news for our next Zoom meeting October 9. ! WOW ! Please share with more Forth friends on different channels. We will have the great presentations and super interesting themes as ever. Join &participate ->https://www.facebook.com/groups/forth2020
>
> It is scheduled that my Forth2020 Facebook group will have a zoom meeting with "Chuck", what an honor!
> Oh sorry folks, not "Chuck Norris", but "Charles (Chuck) Moore", the creator of the Forth programming language, 50 years ago 🙂
> https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=170644201881192&id=100123365599943

Just saw a 40 years remebrance of an AMSAT satellite project.
https://www.sstl.co.uk/media-hub/latest-news/2021/the-story-of-uosat-1-ingenuity-teamwork-and-lots-o

Using most probably IPS - a Forth-like Language.
running on the 1802 ( as stated there)
For details about IPS see the book Dr. Meinzer wrote
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07SGWCSKT/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i16
or search the internet for most of the documentation.

Chuck may have been invlved there in some way.
At least one could ask Chuck
if he knows about what was happening there and then..

On Thursday, October 7, 2021 at 1:47:00 AM UTC-5, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 1 October 2021 at 07:38:04 UTC+1, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
> > Rolf Hemmerling posted this in different Forth facebook groups:
> > https://www.facebook.com/groups/PROGRAMMINGFORTH
> >
> > Forth2020
> > orSepgtateumbemgri 28 oat 2:or52e PugdM ·
> > 🥳Great news for our next Zoom meeting October 9. ! WOW ! Please share with more Forth friends on different channels. We will have the great presentations and super interesting themes as ever. Join &participate ->https://www.facebook.com/groups/forth2020
> >
> > It is scheduled that my Forth2020 Facebook group will have a zoom meeting with "Chuck", what an honor!
> > Oh sorry folks, not "Chuck Norris", but "Charles (Chuck) Moore", the creator of the Forth programming language, 50 years ago 🙂
> > https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=170644201881192&id=100123365599943
> Just saw a 40 years remebrance of an AMSAT satellite project.
> https://www.sstl.co.uk/media-hub/latest-news/2021/the-story-of-uosat-1-ingenuity-teamwork-and-lots-o
>
> Using most probably IPS - a Forth-like Language.
> running on the 1802 ( as stated there)
> For details about IPS see the book Dr. Meinzer wrote
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07SGWCSKT/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i16
> or search the internet for most of the documentation.
>
> Chuck may have been invlved there in some way.
> At least one could ask Chuck
> if he knows about what was happening there and then..

Will this be recorded and made available via some other method than Facebook?

I don't do FB, but would enjoy watching (or, at least, listening to) this.
Thanks