Wayne morellini <waynemorellini@gmail.com> writes:
> I thought I replied to this. It's about overclocking to get a similar
> performance, giving you an intermediate product solution to make money
> off of, and hopefully pay towards custom designs latter.

I feel like there's a presumption behind these posts, that if you can
build a 5 ghz register cpu with a given fab process, then with the same
fab process you can make a tiny 20 ghz stack cpu, because of shorter
paths in the stack cpu or whatever. It's not anything like that. Maybe
you can get 6 ghz instead of 5, but nobody cares about a small
difference like that. There just aren't many problems that demand super
high cpu frequencies that don't also require lots of memory etc. They
want high clocks, but they want full featured big CPUs to run at those
high clocks.

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 9:40:43 AM UTC-5, Brian Fox wrote:
> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 4:30:47 PM UTC-5, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:40:16 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> > > Wayne morellini <waynemo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > [Quantum dots] But, you literally could fit in maybe 1 million more
> > > > circuitry for the same peak energy load... 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.
> > > What I mean is that this is science fiction technology at the moment.
> > > If it becomes viable for microprocessors, then it would presumably be
> > > fine for stack machines, but also for non-stack machines.
> > I agree, but I think the real issue is why chase pie in the sky implementations at 10s of THz when just a few GHz would be a significant improvement? It is normal for technology to proceed in steps rather than great leaps forward.
> >
> > In general the world has rejected stack machines for many, many years. What stack machines really need is a stack machine application, not a stack machine implementation.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Rick C.
> >
> > -++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> > -++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
> Does Java qualify as a stack machine application?
>
> I remember that Sh Boom CPU was capable of running Java at near native speed.
> Nobody cared or...
> the entire goto market strategy was flawed and/or underfunded. (my guess)
>
> Having lived on both the engineering dept. side and the "make $XX million with this
> product or you are fired!" side, I find I have to remind the tech side that a better
> product only gives you permission to begin doing business.
> Business success comes from money and psychology
> ie:the "art" of marketing (one to many)
> and sales (one to one) communication.

Any application that runs on a stack CPU is a stack machine application. I think the issue with Shboom was that nobody cared... or knew. Who outside of the Forth community even knew about Shboom? I don't think I heard about it until it was already dead.

The only reason I like Forth is because it is something I can get both my head around and my hands around. I can do things with it on a PC as well as MCUs and even in FPGAs. I find that very powerful for my needs. Others don't find software tools useful unless they can jump hoops and do other tricks. To each their own.

So why do people think Forth is going to ever rise up again? I believe it has fallen off the list of computer languages, or maybe the top 100 languages or something. I believe there are people in Africa coding by making clicking noises that are more popular than Forth programmers. Some 15-20 years ago I was in a workshop for an early ARM MCU and the FAE actually laughed when I mentioned that I would be using Forth. Yup, laughing at a customer is not something you do if you have ANY respect for him or what he is doing. Meanwhile that company isn't in the ARM business anymore. LoL

--

Rick C.

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

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 1:06:27 PM UTC-5, Anton Ertl wrote:
> Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> writes:
> >No, there will never be 5 cent FPGAs. The low end price of FPGAs is limite=
> >d by testing costs.
>
> That might be an opportunity for a minimal-area processor core (e.g.,
> something like the b16): Instead of testing the FPGA on an expensive
> testing machine, put a low-area core on the FPGA, and it does the
> testing. Of course you still need a testing machine that puts power
> to the die, gives the testing command and reads the result of testing,
> but that could be much cheaper than the more powerful testing machines
> used now.

That would be the ultimate sin, using die area to perform manufacturing test. I suppose if the ultimate cost were lower it could be justified. But this still requires time on the tester and that is what you pay for. It doesn't matter if the testing is done by the tester or by a CPU inside the chip. They have chip custom fixtures to go on the test machines, but the machines are generic. That's why they justify paying so much for them. The same machine can test every device made. If it was practical/profitable to use less expensive testers for some devices they would already be doing that..

There's an entire industry devoted to supplying all the pieces required to make ICs. It's a pretty amazing industry. They don't have much incompetence.

--

Rick C.

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

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 5:50:29 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> writes:
> > The GA144 could implement a software radio easily. It samples at
> > software determined rates up to MHz.... I don't recall the frequencies
> > used for hand held unlicenced radios in the US, but they are probably
> > in the UHF, so not as practical.
> Software radios often have conventional mixer stages, so the SDR part is
> digital demodulation of the mixer ouput. The sample rate doesn't have
> to be anywhere near as high as the carrier.

Yeah, if that's what you want to do. What's your point?

> > The GA144 was a technology experiment to see what the chip could do
> > with no application in mind.
> Or certainly without a clear enough picture of how to implement the
> envisioned application. The underpants gnome school of design.

Not sure what you are saying. There was no intended application market for the GA144. The near complete failure to educate potential users on how to design with the GA144 is a separate issue although probably just as big a barrier to success. I'm sure the lack of any real funding source was the biggest factor behind the tool issues. The chip, however, I suspect would not have been much different if they had a few million dollars to work with. It was a Chuck Moore toy really, a test vehicle for a few ideas he had with no intention of an application. That was clear from the development work he did with the GA144 once the chips came back.

I would love to play with the thing now, but I think my design superpowers are greatly diminished. Sometimes I feel like the old Zeus in a Douglas Adams book. I would like to finish up some work I did on a MISC CPU design that was stack based with offset addressing allowing it to work a bit like a register machine. A spread sheet analysis provided a 33% instruction reduction in an interrupt handler test case that performed operations for a DDS function.

Once I complete the work project I'm on now, I may just work on that CPU. And start doing a lot more kayaking.

--

Rick C.

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

On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 5:34:22 AM UTC+3, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 9:40:43 AM UTC-5, Brian Fox wrote:
> > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 4:30:47 PM UTC-5, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:40:16 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> > > > Wayne morellini <waynemo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > > [Quantum dots] But, you literally could fit in maybe 1 million more
> > > > > circuitry for the same peak energy load... 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.
> > > > What I mean is that this is science fiction technology at the moment.
> > > > If it becomes viable for microprocessors, then it would presumably be
> > > > fine for stack machines, but also for non-stack machines.
> > > I agree, but I think the real issue is why chase pie in the sky implementations at 10s of THz when just a few GHz would be a significant improvement? It is normal for technology to proceed in steps rather than great leaps forward.
> > >
> > > In general the world has rejected stack machines for many, many years.. What stack machines really need is a stack machine application, not a stack machine implementation.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Rick C.
> > >
> > > -++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> > > -++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
> > Does Java qualify as a stack machine application?
> >
> > I remember that Sh Boom CPU was capable of running Java at near native speed.
> > Nobody cared or...
> > the entire goto market strategy was flawed and/or underfunded. (my guess)
> >
> > Having lived on both the engineering dept. side and the "make $XX million with this
> > product or you are fired!" side, I find I have to remind the tech side that a better
> > product only gives you permission to begin doing business.
> > Business success comes from money and psychology
> > ie:the "art" of marketing (one to many)
> > and sales (one to one) communication.
> Any application that runs on a stack CPU is a stack machine application. I think the issue with Shboom was that nobody cared... or knew. Who outside of the Forth community even knew about Shboom? I don't think I heard about it until it was already dead.
>
> The only reason I like Forth is because it is something I can get both my head around and my hands around. I can do things with it on a PC as well as MCUs and even in FPGAs. I find that very powerful for my needs. Others don't find software tools useful unless they can jump hoops and do other tricks. To each their own.
>
> So why do people think Forth is going to ever rise up again? I believe it has fallen off the list of computer languages, or maybe the top 100 languages or something. I believe there are people in Africa coding by making clicking noises that are more popular than Forth programmers. Some 15-20 years ago I was in a workshop for an early ARM MCU and the FAE actually laughed when I mentioned that I would be using Forth. Yup, laughing at a customer is not something you do if you have ANY respect for him or what he is doing. Meanwhile that company isn't in the ARM business anymore. LoL
>
> --
>

Far more exotic languages are used: K, Haskell, etc. Language just need one
killer app to rise again. I.e. smth like Rails, Flutter or TensorFlow.

On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 2:41:29 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 11:00:13 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 1:24:59 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 11:31:55 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 6:35:47 PM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:30:47 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:40:16 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> > > > > > > But, I see no
> > > > > > > > > reason that it doesn't suit a stack machine.
> > > > > > > > What I mean is that this is science fiction technology at the moment.
> > > > > > > > If it becomes viable for microprocessors, then it would presumably be
> > > > > > > > fine for stack machines, but also for non-stack machines.
> > > > > > > I agree, but I think the real issue is why chase pie in the sky implementations at 10s of THz when just a few GHz would be a significant improvement? It is normal for technology to proceed in steps rather than great leaps forward.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In general the world has rejected stack machines for many, many years. What stack machines really need is a stack machine application, not a stack machine implementation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > I'm not saying that they should do a Thz processor. I'm saying that QDCA is a descent bet. That they should look at the 500mhz+ advances and do a few GHz version. When the Thz, if it ever does, gets worked out,, they can move onto that. No science fiction involved, it's what scientists are actually working towards. It's business, you plan for the future and take a bet on which direction to start taking steps into. It's often not clear when using external innovations.
> > > > > You talk about planning as if it were inevitable these things will get designed and built. Where does the money come from? With no track record to speak of the hard part is finding someone who wants to start spending millions and millions of dollars on totally unproven design ideas.
> > > > Wherever it:s conventional silicon or not, it requires money. It's about where they will be in time, even 5. It's about commerce survival, and having the edge. They have to have something in offer for people to buy.
> > > Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying, literally.
> > It's pretty simple. The spell auto corrector trashed the sentence without me realising. Maybe where they will be in 5 years. About commercial survival. That's all.
> Still not following. "Maybe where they will be in 5 years" is not a sentence, no verb. Who's commercial survival???

Rick, you ok? GA is the only one we are talking about. "It's about where they will be in time, even in 5 years" . Is a sentence. It does not require a verb. It refers back to previous sentences, and "will" is good in place of a verb, it can be used as a verb 'too will something to be". As long as the correct information can be understood correctly, by a correct person, it's fine.

> > > > > > Stack machines aren't the problem. Shboom, and rtx went on to have success. It's implementation we are concerned about.
> > > > > What success? They may have found a few design wins. I think the RTX gets used in space apps because it is rad hard (very hard to come by in general). There's nothing about this pedigree that would attract the sort of investor who will pay for such grandiose chips.
> > > > Those where significant designs of their day. Again, there is only normal level design being talked about at this stage. If they earn money, then they can advance to better designs. At the moment, its not optimal, so something has to change to continue.
> > > Significant to whom? They were tiny blips on the RADAR screen. I'm still waiting for someone to show any real world advantages to stack processor chips in the real world of today.
> > Well, objectively they were out there and successful
> > That's it.
> Were they? I don't know what definition of "successful" you are using. I suppose you could call the RTX successful in that they sold more than a handful, but what happened with the Shboom that would be called "success"???
> > > The GA144 attempted to be the universal peripheral laden MCU, but failed in being an MCU at all. The proponents talked about how low power the individual processors were and the low power when not processing, but the programming was so complex they came up with a virtual machine implementation that negated the power savings. In fact, everything they provided was a dollar short of being useful to a user.
> > Now, that is a historical blip. What you say is true.
> > > Partly, the problem of the GA144 was overcoming the entrenchment of conventional processors, but that is the world at this point. Talking about some power savings or speed advantage or even the flexibility of peripherals is not of much use if it solves a problem the users don't have while creating problems users don't have with conventional solutions.
> > They have been operating on presenting solutions to businesses. So, for them. In that way, it has been an employment opportunity. The businesses hi neatly have seen a potential there, and we wouldn't even know if it was in the bionic eat, or their hearing aids here.
> I wasn't aware that anyone at GA was actually an employee in the sense of drawing a significant salary. If the company were selling any real quantity of parts, they would report the sales even if not the customer. I think they bought some thousands of chips and are still working on selling those.

You know under NDA, they can report very little, if at all. You know that's how it works.

> > > So how would money be made from such designs?
> > What they have been doing, yes, but it is scary design for people, and the regular arm is more comfortable. In the 1980's, it would have been a great design, even in the 1990's, but it really needed the 18 bit 640kB address space, even back then. At least one processor with access, if not most or all of them. Now. I wonder why for nearly two decades. I remember, you talked about doing software radio with it, but it was just st too our there and restrictive for a modern high datarate format. My recent designs proposals are suitable for that, but this needs to work at lower data rates. Where a custom asic can dominate it. I am concentrating on how changing tac might produce a better marketable product.
> In the 1980s feature sizes crossed 1 um. The GA144 would have been a much larger chip (around a square inch) and run much more slowly.
>
> The GA144 could implement a software radio easily. It samples at software determined rates up to MHz. You might be able to tune the FM band, but the AM band for sure. I don't recall the frequencies used for hand held unlicenced radios in the US, but they are probably in the UHF, so not as practical.

I get you, you are talking about about an actual radio. I thought that you meant a data radio. Then DAB might be an application.
>
> To create a product you typically start with the requirements and look for technology to implement it. The GA144 was a technology experiment to see what the chip could do with no application in mind. Maybe the device being designed now by another company will have a purpose.

Look, if they had a main CPU with 18 bit memory with direct access, they would have made things a lot easier for themselves. I couldn't expect to make my projecting game device with something that people needed to program a very slow forth emulator running on a cpu most couldn't program. A normal address space CPU would have allowed people to adapt while they learn to use the array, which could be used by subroutines to do tasks, supplied with a development system. I knew what it was from the first time I understood what the layout was. For my other personal device too, I absolutely needed the low energy, but again, the programming. Same for the 8k-32k projection devices. I waited for something better, but non were coming. So, frustrating. Now, like you, my peak ability diminished. A waste of life. This is my 5th rodeo where the bull killed the performer called chip..

Forgive me. I tried to post this before.

On Sun, 5 Dec 2021, 08:55 Paul Rubin, <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Wayne morellini <waynemorellini@gmail.com> writes:
> I thought I replied to this. It's about overclocking to get a similar
> performance, giving you an intermediate product solution to make money
> off of, and hopefully pay towards custom designs latter.

I feel like there's a presumption behind these posts, that if you can
build a 5 ghz register cpu with a given fab process, then with the same
fab process you can make a tiny 20 ghz stack cpu, because of shorter
paths in the stack cpu or whatever.

No. That's not at all what I'm saying. The two are unrelated. It's about how much you can overclock to get the FPGA soft cpu to go at a descent rate. As I've said, it's a simple cheap way to test out a small stack design and get it fast enough to use in a product you sell (not to sell the FPGA or sofcpu ) after you 'may' make enough money from the product, to fund making an ASIC version, for sale or future products.

...

They
want high clocks, but they want full featured big CPUs to run at those
high clocks.

As I said, this is a way to generate revenue to develop such a CPU. By the time you will see the softcpu in a product firba while you can refine the software and firmware on that budget, and carry that over to a future ASIC implementation budget, free. Anyway, I have not been given a clear answer, and 3D printing a MQDCA is more interesting.

If only there was a cheap low energy high speed alternative to gate array, or fpga, it would be good.

Actually, I just thought of a cheap way of masking and printing, with a number of different technologies. I'm unsure if it can go to the limit of resolution.

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 06:40:42 -0800 (PST)
Brian Fox <brian.fox@brianfox.ca> wrote:

> Does Java qualify as a stack machine application?

Since the jvm is a stack engine, and Java compiles into jvm
bytecode, this would seem reasonable technically, although
confusing if viewing the whole system from hardware to Java
applications.
> I remember that Sh Boom CPU was capable of running Java at near native speed.

ISTR that it needed byte code translation, and traps for the
more complex java bytes codes.

A number of hardware java stack engines have been built[1],
and at least some of these also use traps to execute more
complex bytecode instructions.

Jan Coombs
--

[1] Java processor Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_processor

On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 9:49:42 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 2:41:29 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 11:00:13 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 1:24:59 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 11:31:55 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 6:35:47 PM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:30:47 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:40:16 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> > > > > > > > But, I see no
> > > > > > > > > > reason that it doesn't suit a stack machine.
> > > > > > > > > What I mean is that this is science fiction technology at the moment.
> > > > > > > > > If it becomes viable for microprocessors, then it would presumably be
> > > > > > > > > fine for stack machines, but also for non-stack machines.
> > > > > > > > I agree, but I think the real issue is why chase pie in the sky implementations at 10s of THz when just a few GHz would be a significant improvement? It is normal for technology to proceed in steps rather than great leaps forward.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In general the world has rejected stack machines for many, many years. What stack machines really need is a stack machine application, not a stack machine implementation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > I'm not saying that they should do a Thz processor. I'm saying that QDCA is a descent bet. That they should look at the 500mhz+ advances and do a few GHz version. When the Thz, if it ever does, gets worked out,, they can move onto that. No science fiction involved, it's what scientists are actually working towards. It's business, you plan for the future and take a bet on which direction to start taking steps into. It's often not clear when using external innovations.
> > > > > > You talk about planning as if it were inevitable these things will get designed and built. Where does the money come from? With no track record to speak of the hard part is finding someone who wants to start spending millions and millions of dollars on totally unproven design ideas.
> > > > > Wherever it:s conventional silicon or not, it requires money. It's about where they will be in time, even 5. It's about commerce survival, and having the edge. They have to have something in offer for people to buy.
> > > > Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying, literally.
> > > It's pretty simple. The spell auto corrector trashed the sentence without me realising. Maybe where they will be in 5 years. About commercial survival. That's all.
> > Still not following. "Maybe where they will be in 5 years" is not a sentence, no verb. Who's commercial survival???
> Rick, you ok?

I'm fine. Are you a native English speaker?

> GA is the only one we are talking about. "It's about where they will be in time, even in 5 years" . Is a sentence. It does not require a verb.

"Maybe where they will be in 5 years" is not a sentence. "It's about where they will be in time, even in 5 years" is a sentence and it has a verb, "It's" means "It is" and "is" is the verb of that sentence, but the sentence is poorly constructed and makes little sense. "About commercial survival." is also not a sentence.

What's wrong with using clearly constructed sentences?

> It refers back to previous sentences, and "will" is good in place of a verb, it can be used as a verb 'too will something to be". As long as the correct information can be understood correctly, by a correct person, it's fine.

I suppose I'm not a correct person.

> > > > > > > Stack machines aren't the problem. Shboom, and rtx went on to have success. It's implementation we are concerned about.
> > > > > > What success? They may have found a few design wins. I think the RTX gets used in space apps because it is rad hard (very hard to come by in general). There's nothing about this pedigree that would attract the sort of investor who will pay for such grandiose chips.
> > > > > Those where significant designs of their day. Again, there is only normal level design being talked about at this stage. If they earn money, then they can advance to better designs. At the moment, its not optimal, so something has to change to continue.
> > > > Significant to whom? They were tiny blips on the RADAR screen. I'm still waiting for someone to show any real world advantages to stack processor chips in the real world of today.
> > > Well, objectively they were out there and successful
> > > That's it.
> > Were they? I don't know what definition of "successful" you are using. I suppose you could call the RTX successful in that they sold more than a handful, but what happened with the Shboom that would be called "success"???
> > > > The GA144 attempted to be the universal peripheral laden MCU, but failed in being an MCU at all. The proponents talked about how low power the individual processors were and the low power when not processing, but the programming was so complex they came up with a virtual machine implementation that negated the power savings. In fact, everything they provided was a dollar short of being useful to a user.
> > > Now, that is a historical blip. What you say is true.
> > > > Partly, the problem of the GA144 was overcoming the entrenchment of conventional processors, but that is the world at this point. Talking about some power savings or speed advantage or even the flexibility of peripherals is not of much use if it solves a problem the users don't have while creating problems users don't have with conventional solutions.
> > > They have been operating on presenting solutions to businesses. So, for them. In that way, it has been an employment opportunity. The businesses hi neatly have seen a potential there, and we wouldn't even know if it was in the bionic eat, or their hearing aids here.
> > I wasn't aware that anyone at GA was actually an employee in the sense of drawing a significant salary. If the company were selling any real quantity of parts, they would report the sales even if not the customer. I think they bought some thousands of chips and are still working on selling those..
> You know under NDA, they can report very little, if at all. You know that's how it works.

NDAs do not prevent reporting of activities of a company such as profit or sales reports. They just can't mention the customer. As I said, there is no indication GA has ever bought a second batch of chips. How long has that been, 10 years? More? Sorry, GA has never been a viable, functioning company by any realistic measure. I run a company that sells one product to a company that orders when they get government contracts. So I've had years with zero sales or profit. Based on what we know of GA, my company would be considered a more viable company. At least it has sales and reports them on income tax forms.

> > > > So how would money be made from such designs?
> > > What they have been doing, yes, but it is scary design for people, and the regular arm is more comfortable. In the 1980's, it would have been a great design, even in the 1990's, but it really needed the 18 bit 640kB address space, even back then. At least one processor with access, if not most or all of them. Now. I wonder why for nearly two decades. I remember, you talked about doing software radio with it, but it was just st too our there and restrictive for a modern high datarate format. My recent designs proposals are suitable for that, but this needs to work at lower data rates. Where a custom asic can dominate it. I am concentrating on how changing tac might produce a better marketable product.
> > In the 1980s feature sizes crossed 1 um. The GA144 would have been a much larger chip (around a square inch) and run much more slowly.
> >
> > The GA144 could implement a software radio easily. It samples at software determined rates up to MHz. You might be able to tune the FM band, but the AM band for sure. I don't recall the frequencies used for hand held unlicenced radios in the US, but they are probably in the UHF, so not as practical.
> I get you, you are talking about about an actual radio. I thought that you meant a data radio. Then DAB might be an application.

What is transmitted means nothing. For a direct conversion the carrier frequency is probably limited to 100 MHz or less. That would require a significant input signal with good SNR.

> > To create a product you typically start with the requirements and look for technology to implement it. The GA144 was a technology experiment to see what the chip could do with no application in mind. Maybe the device being designed now by another company will have a purpose.
> Look, if they had a main CPU with 18 bit memory with direct access, they would have made things a lot easier for themselves. I couldn't expect to make my projecting game device with something that people needed to program a very slow forth emulator running on a cpu most couldn't program. A normal address space CPU would have allowed people to adapt while they learn to use the array, which could be used by subroutines to do tasks, supplied with a development system. I knew what it was from the first time I understood what the layout was. For my other personal device too, I absolutely needed the low energy, but again, the programming. Same for the 8k-32k projection devices. I waited for something better, but non were coming. So, frustrating.. Now, like you, my peak ability diminished. A waste of life. This is my 5th rodeo where the bull killed the performer called chip..

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021, 09:49 Rick C, <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 9:49:42 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 2:41:29 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 11:00:13 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 1:24:59 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 11:31:55 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 6:35:47 PM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:30:47 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:40:16 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:

> Rick, you ok?

I'm fine. Are you a native English speaker?

> GA is the only one we are talking about. "It's about where they will be in time, even in 5 years" . Is a sentence. It does not require a verb.

"Maybe where they will be in 5 years" is not a sentence. "It's about where they will be in time, even in 5 years" is a sentence and it has a verb, "It's" means "It is" and "is" is the verb of that sentence, but the sentence is poorly constructed and makes little sense. "About commercial survival." is also not a sentence.

Do we get annoyed at street signs, point lists, columns of numbers, forth code. A lot of that are not sentences, and nor do you need a proper sentence structure to convey correct information, as all those examples show. So, it isn't superior to use the best grammer, but it is to convey the correct information, isn't that correct?

Now, I don't know about 'is' actually being used as a verb there, rather than a place (adjective, possession of place, which is obvious), and not traveling to the place, but where the place maybe in 5 years time. But then again "it's about" is that doing something (probably) or possessing something? But, "it's" originally used to be the possessive, and I still use it that way, and it is a form of usage. But the modern usage of "it's" is a corruption of the original word "ist". "Is" is the indicative mood of "Be", so maybe the be in maybe constitutes a verb in the adverb, do it's still makes sense.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up. In clarifying that, I used it a few different ways, all of which talked about a future state in 5 years time. But, to do everything mechanistically (and English is not the language to be doing that in, as it has changed so much, and does change, as the living language. It's grammar has become quite a challenge) is to be mechanistic, rather than flexible.

I've seen you debate things here with various people over the years. But, this is not good timing. I have a dieing parent, and I'm not doing the best either. However, I do know of people who get contracted rigid thought when sick. You have indicated you have issues too.

> You know under NDA, they can report very little, if at all. You know that's how it works.

NDAs do not prevent reporting of activities of a company such as profit or sales reports. They just can't mention the customer. As I said, there is no indication GA has ever bought a second batch of chips. How long has that been, 10 years? More? Sorry, GA has never been a viable, functioning company by any realistic measure. I run a company that sells one product to a company that orders when they get government contracts. So I've had years with zero sales or profit. Based on what we know of GA, my company would be considered a more viable company. At least it has sales and reports them on income tax forms.

I didn't really indicate that I thought GA was a great success, but they kept going offering funded services.

In a publically traded company, you have certain reporting responsibilities.. In a privately traded company, you don't. They can keep their books and deals closed under NDA, to regular people. Reporting those things can adversely affect the amount of new work.

> > > > So how would money be made from such designs?
> > > What they have been doing, yes, but it is scary design for people, and the regular arm is more comfortable. In the 1980's, it would have been a great design, even in the 1990's, but it really needed the 18 bit 640kB address space, even back then. At least one processor with access, if not most or all of them. Now. I wonder why for nearly two decades. I remember, you talked about doing software radio with it, but it was just st too our there and restrictive for a modern high datarate format. My recent designs proposals are suitable for that, but this needs to work at lower data rates. Where a custom asic can dominate it. I am concentrating on how changing tac might produce a better marketable product.
> > In the 1980s feature sizes crossed 1 um. The GA144 would have been a much larger chip (around a square inch)

Hmm, I should have said "design concept", where the size of the array can vary. Speed doesn't matter (except in relation to th competition) it was about the style of the concept, and the level of technical proficiency required to program it. It reminds more of something coming out of the 1970's. But, the point was, by the end of 1990's, people would have been so used to easier development solutions, that it's day would have passed, and ASIC integration was the future. A single 640KB direct addressable memory would have compensated a bit. But, now, the market is ultra basic, small, low or high energy, or integrated. I would still find use for a piece of wire small 5Ghz single or 8 chip, mind you, just because it can do everything in an application.

But, about designing it with an end product in mind. Processors are designed to be suitable to develop many end products, Probably not too many with only the be product in mind. Was the x18 such a chip, no. People would have preferred a child thru could use multiple ways. Giving the x18 some main memory and simple programming, is not the solution now either. That time has past. Now, you need something which targets the iot, wireless data, data, and integrated markets. Generating bit coins costs money, having something to do that for a lot less money, is a product. But, bit coin becomes less relevant, or they find other ways to generate them cheaper, then that product becomes less relevant too. But, there is something that has a future market 10 years ago. Server chips had a market too, but companies have wised up to doing them better. So, what's available has shrunk and changed, and what's left are still pretty big markets. But the current chips aren't there. Their advanced 32 bit was/is, and probably a 16 bit array version of that for alongside a single 32 bit or 16 bit (depending on market) with full main memory access. But, it is likely there would need to be specific integrations for different markets, with heavy integration in the integrated market, to over compete with what's out there on a desirable level.

About the 1 micron in 1980's chips you mentioned, didn't they get 0.8 and 0..6 devices on the market by 1990?

> I get you, you are talking about about an actual radio. I thought that you meant a data radio. Then DAB might be an application.

What is transmitted means nothing. For a direct conversion the carrier frequency is probably limited to 100 MHz or less. That would require a significant input signal with good SNR.

Yes it does. Modern high end communications standards deal with a lot of bandwidth. Even old wireless HD (was it, I get the names confused. It was the one from the developers of HDMI) was 27Gb/s, or maybe more. If we are talking about some sort of digital ham survivalist wireless network, then sure, the data rate you could get out of it maybe good. But, in many cases, an integrated mass produced chip is going be ok.

The idea of a F18A like device with an 18 bit address space, fully populated by memory is a contradiction. The speed of the F18A is due to every part of the device using optimal structures, often very different from what is used in most designs. Give it a 256 kW memory and it would run much slower.. Even with a 4 kW memory it would be slower.

It was originally stated that the 18 bit bus matched an 18 bit static ram cache chip, which presumably can attach to just one processor in the array, making nearly 0 difference in the energy consumption and performance if not attached, and great differences in performance of certain product applications, of used. Again, that was back then, and now those chips are probably going be expensive. However, memories that use die capacitance are a viable alternative to static memory, integrated in the same die with the processor. There is probably a market for a 32 bit advanced version with 4-16GB of memory able to be powered off in banks that aren't used, somewhere out there. Why they didn't point out to Nasa, defence and government funding departments: the world's best novix (in vax comparison); RTX NASA success; Apollo Workstation take over attempt shboom1 superiority and C language usefulness; The other superior performance stats of other chips, starting with mup20; and the superior stats of the low energy devices since then, and ask for funding to develop a range of chips to suit them, and American commerce (economic orientated products and general sales). The intellasys IOT aim, was actually a good way to get trillions of unit, and big attention. Because, once you are the go to place to get this type of technology, you have the chance to become one of the big boys, the in crowd, the big defence funding contracts. With the new space industries, reliable distributed networked redundant processing is a thing. Literally, copies of everything all over the ship. If you loose a chip or part of the chip, failsafe backups kick into place. Also, heavy reliable ships is the way I would go. Ive got a lot to say about that subject, and would be doing things a lot better. On average, I would aim for up to 10-100x better survival rate in a catastrophe. The movie, Travellers, showed the usual arrogance we see in corporate culture. There are a few others, that show the density of difficulty you get out there. I was saying to somebody recently, I've considered working with one of the space companies. I actually live in the nearest main hub to the best alternative to US launch site in the world. If I were to work on colonies of Mars, I would look at several layers of redundant passive and active long term protection, on a distributed colony. Not in a small target zone on a planet with a high rate of strikes and little atmosphere you can breath or would reduce meteor impact. I'm not going say much more about that, but it's practically better to live in orbit in something that can move out of the way, while the surface infrastructure is developed from orbit, and even terra forming. I actually have maybe a 1000 year terra forming proposal with magneto sphere and oceans and atmosphere. If you are worried about the planet being destroyed, then get used to living in space, because living on a worse planet, more likely to be destroyed, waiting on the surface for any distant impact wave, is not a good option. If you are used to living in space, you can more than easily travel. I used to read little books about colonising mars when young, but being a mature adult, with my wits, I can see it's not a mature solution. In my own science fiction stories I propose practical solution for stella orbital rings of habitats (no knowledge of the other science fiction megastructures, and this by far is not the biggest structure). Even a proposal for a ring planet, that rotated on its central axis by warping spacial co-ordinates, so that the inside of the ring, and the outside are the same (as if a straight rod) so you get day and night,. Around the thickness of Earth, you get similar gravity. So, that people could do the long walk, around the ring, go home and come back again and resume the wall where they left off, with pilgrims able to walk the ring for the rest of their lives, and never reach the end of the hundreds and hundreds of millions of kilometers. A sort of fantasy story for a Doctor Who episode, with a lot of cultural texture, situated millions or billions of years into the future. Very old, but not absurdly crusty like a DW episode can get. To cast a picture of information, to romance people's hearts. Anyway, I can write like a grammar text books, but I'm not one. Rules aren't meant to be broken as such, but some decide which are the better or acceptable rules. It's very philosophical to do with the texture or weights and balances of how it interacts within the workspace, and with people.. So, so advocate beauty through design. So that seeing, understand and or using, is beautiful. Such beauty is cheap compared to covering something in gargoyles and maintaining that, and better in square boxes that are arranged with little beauty.

On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 10:04:47 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021, 09:49 Rick C, <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 9:49:42 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 2:41:29 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 11:00:13 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 1:24:59 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 11:31:55 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 6:35:47 PM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:30:47 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:40:16 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> > Rick, you ok?
>
> I'm fine. Are you a native English speaker?

You seem to have goofed up the attribution, but that's ok, I'm going to step out of this conversation. It is clear that either you are not a native English speaker or you literally slept your way through school.

> > GA is the only one we are talking about. "It's about where they will be in time, even in 5 years" . Is a sentence. It does not require a verb.
>
> "Maybe where they will be in 5 years" is not a sentence. "It's about where they will be in time, even in 5 years" is a sentence and it has a verb, "It's" means "It is" and "is" is the verb of that sentence, but the sentence is poorly constructed and makes little sense. "About commercial survival." is also not a sentence.
> Do we get annoyed at street signs, point lists, columns of numbers, forth code. A lot of that are not sentences, and nor do you need a proper sentence structure to convey correct information, as all those examples show. So, it isn't superior to use the best grammer, but it is to convey the correct information, isn't that correct?
>
> Now, I don't know about 'is' actually being used as a verb there, rather than a place (adjective, possession of place, which is obvious), and not traveling to the place, but where the place maybe in 5 years time. But then again "it's about" is that doing something (probably) or possessing something? But, "it's" originally used to be the possessive, and I still use it that way, and it is a form of usage. But the modern usage of "it's" is a corruption of the original word "ist". "Is" is the indicative mood of "Be", so maybe the be in maybe constitutes a verb in the adverb, do it's still makes sense.

Wow! You really need to go back to school to get a proper education. "It's" is not possessive. "Its" is possessive. "Is" is the verb of the sentence. Read the definition of "is" in a dictionary and it will explain how to properly use it. "Is" has a number of meanings, but as used above it is an intransitive verb, present tense third-person singular of be with a meaning as listed here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/be

"It's" is discussed here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/it's

"Its" is discussed here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its

> Anyway, thanks for the heads up. In clarifying that, I used it a few different ways, all of which talked about a future state in 5 years time. But, to do everything mechanistically (and English is not the language to be doing that in, as it has changed so much, and does change, as the living language. It's grammar has become quite a challenge) is to be mechanistic, rather than flexible.

That is just rationalization. Either you had nothing to say or you simply don't know English well enough to say it.

> I've seen you debate things here with various people over the years. But, this is not good timing. I have a dieing parent, and I'm not doing the best either. However, I do know of people who get contracted rigid thought when sick. You have indicated you have issues too.
> > You know under NDA, they can report very little, if at all. You know that's how it works.
>
> NDAs do not prevent reporting of activities of a company such as profit or sales reports. They just can't mention the customer. As I said, there is no indication GA has ever bought a second batch of chips. How long has that been, 10 years? More? Sorry, GA has never been a viable, functioning company by any realistic measure. I run a company that sells one product to a company that orders when they get government contracts. So I've had years with zero sales or profit. Based on what we know of GA, my company would be considered a more viable company. At least it has sales and reports them on income tax forms.
> I didn't really indicate that I thought GA was a great success, but they kept going offering funded services.

They are operating the way I do, essentially zero overhead like a spider waiting in his web for a "customer" to land.

> In a publically traded company, you have certain reporting responsibilities. In a privately traded company, you don't. They can keep their books and deals closed under NDA, to regular people. Reporting those things can adversely affect the amount of new work.

No one worries about keeping "books" closed other than the information pertaining to them. A customer has no reason to ask GA to never make any announcements about the activities of the company.

This is not worth arguing about. The bottom line is GA is a failure by nearly any objective measure whether you wish to accept that or not.

> > > > > So how would money be made from such designs?
> > > > What they have been doing, yes, but it is scary design for people, and the regular arm is more comfortable. In the 1980's, it would have been a great design, even in the 1990's, but it really needed the 18 bit 640kB address space, even back then. At least one processor with access, if not most or all of them. Now. I wonder why for nearly two decades. I remember, you talked about doing software radio with it, but it was just st too our there and restrictive for a modern high datarate format. My recent designs proposals are suitable for that, but this needs to work at lower data rates. Where a custom asic can dominate it. I am concentrating on how changing tac might produce a better marketable product.
> > > In the 1980s feature sizes crossed 1 um. The GA144 would have been a much larger chip (around a square inch)
> Hmm, I should have said "design concept", where the size of the array can vary. Speed doesn't matter (except in relation to th competition) it was about the style of the concept, and the level of technical proficiency required to program it. It reminds more of something coming out of the 1970's. But, the point was, by the end of 1990's, people would have been so used to easier development solutions, that it's day would have passed, and ASIC integration was the future. A single 640KB direct addressable memory would have compensated a bit. But, now, the market is ultra basic, small, low or high energy, or integrated. I would still find use for a piece of wire small 5Ghz single or 8 chip, mind you, just because it can do everything in an application.

I think you don't understand the chip very well. It is not an MCU like any other. The only thing remarkable about it is the fact that the CPUs run very fast with minimal power and there are a lot of them. Without both of those features it is pretty pointless. Even 144 and 700 MIPS is on the edge of being useful. With the same approach of using fully depreciated fabs the chip would be done perhaps in 3 um technology, but since the costs of "current" technology were not so absurdly high at that time I'll give them 1 um technology. That means they could get perhaps 6 CPUs on a die with much higher power per MIPS and the max instruction rate would be in the low 10s of MIPS. At that point the device has lost all it's advantages and have about the same transistor count per CPU as the 8086.

> But, about designing it with an end product in mind. Processors are designed to be suitable to develop many end products, Probably not too many with only the be product in mind.

You are clearly not familiar with the MCU market. No, an MCU is not designed for a single app, but they are definitely targeted to market segments. That's why there are so many different MCUs out there. Each one has a specific combination of features designed to be optimal for some range of applications. That means the applications have to be known as well as a good estimate of production volumes to be expected. No one says, "Let's build this MCU because someone *might* be interested in this range of features". It doesn't work that way.

> Was the x18 such a chip, no. People would have preferred a child thru could use multiple ways. Giving the x18 some main memory and simple programming, is not the solution now either. That time has past. Now, you need something which targets the iot, wireless data, data, and integrated markets. Generating bit coins costs money, having something to do that for a lot less money, is a product. But, bit coin becomes less relevant, or they find other ways to generate them cheaper, then that product becomes less relevant too. But, there is something that has a future market 10 years ago. Server chips had a market too, but companies have wised up to doing them better. So, what's available has shrunk and changed, and what's left are still pretty big markets. But the current chips aren't there. Their advanced 32 bit was/is, and probably a 16 bit array version of that for alongside a single 32 bit or 16 bit (depending on market) with full main memory access. But, it is likely there would need to be specific integrations for different markets, with heavy integration in the integrated market, to over compete with what's out there on a desirable level.

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 5:44:32 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Brian Fox <bria...@brianfox.ca> writes:
> > Does Java qualify as a stack machine application?
> No it really doesn't. The JVM is a stack virtual machine but high
> performance applications translate the JVM code into register machine
> code. Also I believe (not sure) that the JVM stack can be indexed like
> an array, so it is not a true stack with only LIFO access (other than
> the top few elements).

Well with a single level look-up table and about 20K of code (vs 200K according to old CPU marketing information) Sh-boom could become a JVM.
Indexing the Hardware stack would not be appropriate no, but that would be emulated in memory I should think.
It was 1990's so it would have been very competitive in performance to existing register machines.
But as mentioned better product does not equate to business success without the rest of the recipe.

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021, 04:26 Rick C, <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 10:04:47 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021, 09:49 Rick C, <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 9:49:42 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 2:41:29 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 11:00:13 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 1:24:59 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 11:26:41 PM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 11:31:55 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 6:35:47 PM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 7:30:47 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 1:40:16 PM UTC-5, Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> > Rick, you ok?
>
> I'm fine. Are you a native English speaker?

You seem to have goofed up the attribution, but that's ok, I'm going to step out of this conversation. It is clear that either you are not a native English speaker or you literally slept your way through school.

Rick I have seen you carry on this way here over the years. You are not superior to everybody you argue against, and I see below you are keeping it up . This is not acceptable. You have been proven wrong most times in this email too.. Time to give it a break!. It's not I who have problems following things. "It's" was the historical possessive, as explained.

You know that GA, has talked about being approached to develop options to demonstrate (presumably based on the existing chip) but the client obviously went with another option. That is usually protected by NDA. As I rightly said in business, NDAs can cover these things, whatever type of NDA document, incase you were planning on going there.. If you have an axe to grind don't take it out on people. You also notice I, and others here, don't say GA did things contrary to what is known.

> > GA is the only one we are talking about. "It's about where they will be in time, even in 5 years" .

>>"About commercial survival." is also not a sentence.

> Do we get annoyed at street signs, point lists, columns of numbers, forth code. A lot of that are not sentences, and nor do you need a proper sentence structure to convey correct information, as all those examples show. So, it isn't superior to use the best grammer, but it is to convey the correct information, isn't that correct?
>
> Now, I don't know about 'is' actually being used as a verb there, rather than a place (adjective, possession of place, which is obvious), and not traveling to the place, but where the place maybe in 5 years time. But then again "it's about" is that doing something (probably) or possessing something? But, "it's" originally used to be the possessive, and I still use it that way, and it is a form of usage. But the modern usage of "it's" is a corruption of the original word "ist". "Is" is the indicative mood of "Be", so maybe the be in maybe constitutes a verb in the adverb, do it's still makes sense.

Wow! You really need to go back to school to get a proper education. "It's" is not possessive. "Its" is possessive. "Is" is the verb of the sentence. Read the definition of "is" in a dictionary and it will explain how to properly use it. "Is" has a number of meanings, but as used above it is an intransitive verb, present tense third-person singular of be with a meaning as listed here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/be

"It's" is discussed here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/it's

"Its" is discussed here.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its

See my previous true statements about it.

> Anyway, thanks for the heads up. In clarifying that, I used it a few different ways, all of which talked about a future state in 5 years time. But, to do everything mechanistically (and English is not the language to be doing that in, as it has changed so much, and does change, as the living language. It's grammar has become quite a challenge) is to be mechanistic, rather than flexible.

That is just rationalization. Either you had nothing to say or you simply don't know English well enough to say it.

But, one says it with understanding.

> I've seen you debate things here with various people over the years. But, this is not good timing. I have a dieing parent, and I'm not doing the best either. However, I do know of people who get contracted rigid thought when sick. You have indicated you have issues too.

> > You know under NDA, they can report very little, if at all. You know that's how it works.
>
> NDAs do not prevent reporting of activities of a company such as profit or sales reports. They just can't mention the customer. As I said, there is no indication GA has ever bought a second batch of chips. How long has that been, 10 years? More? Sorry, GA has never been a viable, functioning company by any realistic measure. I run a company that sells one product to a company that orders when they get government contracts. So I've had years with zero sales or profit. Based on what we know of GA, my company would be considered a more viable company. At least it has sales and reports them on income tax forms.
> I didn't really indicate that I thought GA was a great success, but they kept going offering funded services.

They are operating the way I do, essentially zero overhead like a spider waiting in his web for a "customer" to land.

> In a publically traded company, you have certain reporting responsibilities. In a privately traded company, you don't. They can keep their books and deals closed under NDA, to regular people. Reporting those things can adversely affect the amount of new work.

No one worries about keeping "books" closed other than the information pertaining to them. A customer has no reason to ask GA to never make any announcements about the activities of the company.

That's definitely wrong. You said you have a one product company for some military application? You wouldn't know from that experience. It's the activities related to the client they keep safe, and their books otherwise, to attract more clients. Occasionally they shared something, and the client would have OK'd that.

So what is your military product you mentioned?

This is not worth arguing about. The bottom line is GA is a failure by nearly any objective measure whether you wish to accept that or not.

You are arguing about it. Failure is a classic subjective term. What's failure to one, is mild success to the other doing it. If I ran something like this, I would be depressed. There is just so much that could be done.

> > > > > So how would money be made from such designs?
> > > > What they have been doing, yes, but it is scary design for people, and the regular arm is more comfortable. In the 1980's, it would have been a great design, even in the 1990's, but it really needed the 18 bit 640kB address space, even back then. At least one processor with access, if not most or all of them. Now. I wonder why for nearly two decades. I remember, you talked about doing software radio with it, but it was just st too our there and restrictive for a modern high datarate format. My recent designs proposals are suitable for that, but this needs to work at lower data rates. Where a custom asic can dominate it. I am concentrating on how changing tac might produce a better marketable product.
> > > In the 1980s feature sizes crossed 1 um. The GA144 would have been a much larger chip (around a square inch)
> Hmm, I should have said "design concept", where the size of the array can vary. Speed doesn't matter (except in relation to th competition) it was about the style of the concept, and the level of technical proficiency required to program it. It reminds more of something coming out of the 1970's. But, the point was, by the end of 1990's, people would have been so used to easier development solutions, that it's day would have passed, and ASIC integration was the future. A single 640KB direct addressable memory would have compensated a bit. But, now, the market is ultra basic, small, low or high energy, or integrated. I would still find use for a piece of wire small 5Ghz single or 8 chip, mind you, just because it can do everything in an application.

I think you don't understand the chip very well. It is not an MCU like any other.

How do you get that from what I. I am writing? I know this is very limited, and what could have helped a bit.

At that point the device has lost all it's advantages and have about the same transistor count per CPU as the 8086.

With memory, that the 8086 didn't have, otherwise it would be close to 1000-4000 transistors per actual processor. I would dump the execution memory for the core hooked to external execute memory. Actually, were we talking about a piece of wire (ultra narrow) chip, 5ghz, maybe 8 core? That was talking about a modern process. So, it should fit.

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 10:12:45 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> Rick I have seen you carry on this way here over the years. You are not superior to everybody you argue against, and I see below you are keeping it up . This is not acceptable. You have been proven wrong most times in this email too.. Time to give it a break!. It's not I who have problems following things. "It's" was the historical possessive, as explained.

OMG! By "historical possessive" you mean this is how it was spelled some 300 years ago? We are living in the present, not the past. Do you write your s's like f's? You are absurd and you are trying to call me out? This is not about superiority. This is about you making mistakes and treating fallacies as facts. Own up to it or show me wrong. That's all it takes. Show me wrong.

> You know that GA, has talked about being approached to develop options to demonstrate (presumably based on the existing chip) but the client obviously went with another option. That is usually protected by NDA. As I rightly said in business, NDAs can cover these things, whatever type of NDA document, incase you were planning on going there.. If you have an axe to grind don't take it out on people. You also notice I, and others here, don't say GA did things contrary to what is known.

I never asked for anything covered by NDA to be discussed. I made the point that GA has not talked about any actual activity in sales (without mentioning who the other party might have been), showing they are essentially moribund. You countered with the NDA claim and we've been arguing over what an NDA would cover. Now you retreat to saying discussions with other companies would be covered by NDA which I've never disagreed with. In fact you seem to be acknowledging that GA has had no sales of any significant quantity which is what this started with. GA bought some minimum number of parts and would have crowed loudly had they sold enough to warrant another order from GA's supplier even if they could not discuss who the parts were sold to.

> > Now, I don't know about 'is' actually being used as a verb there, rather than a place (adjective, possession of place, which is obvious), and not traveling to the place, but where the place maybe in 5 years time. But then again "it's about" is that doing something (probably) or possessing something? But, "it's" originally used to be the possessive, and I still use it that way, and it is a form of usage. But the modern usage of "it's" is a corruption of the original word "ist". "Is" is the indicative mood of "Be", so maybe the be in maybe constitutes a verb in the adverb, do it's still makes sense.
>
> Wow! You really need to go back to school to get a proper education. "It's" is not possessive. "Its" is possessive. "Is" is the verb of the sentence.. Read the definition of "is" in a dictionary and it will explain how to properly use it. "Is" has a number of meanings, but as used above it is an intransitive verb, present tense third-person singular of be with a meaning as listed here.
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/be
>
> "It's" is discussed here.
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/it's
>
> "Its" is discussed here.
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its
> See my previous true statements about it.

Both of these links AGREE with me 100%. It's is a contraction of "it is" and its is the possessive form. 'Tis true that your use of it's as possessive is from many centuries ago.

> But, one says it with understanding.

Just not it's with understanding.

> That's definitely wrong. You said you have a one product company for some military application?

I never said anything about the military.

> You wouldn't know from that experience.

> It's the activities related to the client they keep safe, and their books otherwise, to attract more clients. Occasionally they shared something, and the client would have OK'd that.

Exactly. They are free to discuss their own information without revealing the nature of their contracts with their customers.

> So what is your military product you mentioned?

You are mistaken.

> You are arguing about it.

Indeed. I often do self destructive things like eat candy and ice cream.

> Failure is a classic subjective term. What's failure to one, is mild success to the other doing it. If I ran something like this, I would be depressed. There is just so much that could be done.

So what is the meaning of "is"?

> How do you get that from what I. I am writing? I know this is very limited, and what could have helped a bit.
> At that point the device has lost all it's advantages and have about the same transistor count per CPU as the 8086.
> With memory, that the 8086 didn't have, otherwise it would be close to 1000-4000 transistors per actual processor. I would dump the execution memory for the core hooked to external execute memory. Actually, were we talking about a piece of wire (ultra narrow) chip, 5ghz, maybe 8 core? That was talking about a modern process. So, it should fit.

There is no point in discussing the number of transistors. In a modern process the CPU itself has so few transistors as to be counted as zero. What is useful. is doing something of value with the transistors. The GA144 failed to do that. It would also fail in a more modern process. The design was a thought experiment that someone found money to put into silicon. It has gone no further. It is essentially dead, moribund, an ex-CPU and will be relegated to the halls of the extinct minor processors of the world. Chuck isn't working on new designs and I don't see much sign of anyone else carrying the torch in the same way. I think having invented a language gives one a certain gravitas that helps to sell unique ideas even when they are not well thought out.

> One thing I must say. Is the GA, can be thought as a chip where you can stick custom routines in each address space in a fab run, and use the processor memories as further customisations and working memory.

Which by itself is pointless. It has to be shown how to use this for applications. The two big limitations are the poor point to point communications and the tiny memory of each processor. Both because no one wrote any significant code before making the chip. Intel tests every chip they make with many, many lines of code in simulation long before laying out any mask sets. GA could have done this as well. Instead they wait for silicon and end up cobbling a few (very few) examples that impress no one. 10 Mbps Ethernet??? Why not just say, "we can't do useful Internet on this device". How do you do USB support? Add an MCU chip with Ethernet!

> Otherwise, it just gets close to being a software filter stage, and not much more fitting in the memories of the current end user chip. My old application, a projection video game, the single core with a main memory, would have been fine, as I was going do vector graphics, and use the array for calculations and limited 3D calculations. Very simple and close to what I needed. But, they didn't give one core that mount of power. I could sit here all day and talk about ways to improve the design, then I would be just giving away most of my secrets here for nothing. The issue was, they didn't do this. Why didn't they sit down and nut out some simple improvements like these?

You seem to misunderstand the F18A. It is a thought experiment, a concept not intended to do anything in particular, but an idea looking for a purpose. The GA144 is another thought experiment about cobbling together many small processors, again without trying to solve any problem. Talking about larger memory on a single processor offends both of these ideas.

> Rick, you are splitting hairs bringing in old 1 micron, and the speed and size compared to the current as if that was the only thing available. While, the move to 0.8 or 0.6, makes a huge difference to your arguments, not splitting hairs.

Sorry, but you were the one who brought up old tech, not me. 1 um vs. 0.8 um makes no difference, 0.6 still not much. Again, sorry. I will say again, the GA144 used a process that was 10 years old at the time. Now you want to use the latest and greatest process to compare to devices made over an entire decade.

> It would be reasonable to say the architecture fits at whatever speed and size and number of processors it could do back then. The only logical thing, is how it would compare to other chips back then. Didn't the mup get 80-100mips in 1990, so we could reasonably expect lower energy for a unit of speed. You would also know, that the reason 180nm was chosen, was the energy performance of the process, not just that it was an old process.

So the GA144 idea is not useful in a more modern process, yeah, I get that.

> Why are you ignoring new interfaces, why are you trying to justify on old standards only, and ignoring what is being talked about.

What are you babbling about??? I had said the GA144 could be used for an entirely software radio and you start saying it can't be because you pick applications where the data rate is too high. Bluetooth is a CURRENT application selling billions of chips every year. Why are you so frenetic about this?

I think it's time we stopped this. You are getting in front of people's lives. You don't read fully, then argue from not reading in a self entitled way, interfering. You are picking little things out, about being wrong. Like historical possessive use of "it's", avoiding that it is in use both ways today.

You are talking in destructive criticism. Don't matter how wrong we show you, you just come back trying to prove yourself in some other way. You are stuck, that the other person has moved on from 'it's' but can't except that, as you try to get advantage from it. Yes, it's not the most normal usage, but not really the wrong way in the "living language", as English is called. Eventually, "affect" will become "effect" at this rate too, and maybe even "too" will disappear (we hope not), as has been going on in reduction in languages in history. An English grammar teacher doesn't make a great writer, just somebody who parrots grammar rather than writes greatly.

The continuos negativity is really too much. Sophisticated conversations do infer (meaning). Or, "sophisticated conversation infer". Or, "sophisticated conversations.." as "infer" was already used. It is also the ability in design, to fill in the blanks.

I never said GA didn't make any sales, but I acknowledge they have stated they do work for others. You did ask about things they could be keeping secret, for, as I did say, either their own reasons of image, or because of NDA. But, you can't accept that you have no real proof, and argue from an 'absence of proof is proof of absence' argument, which is one of the fallacy arguments used by negative people who have no proof, inorder to act like they have proof, and therefore are significant. More knowledge means more words, and more skill means more ability to access, order and work knowledge. Being right is about agreeing with truth. It's rather better to, not presume the worse and trash people, like the company talked about here, instead.

Let's see, you made some sort of mistake, it was countered, that the architecture with some cores etc could fit, and then you try to shift the conversation to make out transistor and processor core density doesn't matter, which is irrelevant, on order to avoid admitting wrong.

You misunderstand (while accusing the other person of misunderstanding) about the "F18A" and the GA144. They suit workflows that go straight across the chip and out the other side, adding a bit of processing at each stage, like was expressed. Easy to program (more or less, due to the communications stage). One can even have some input on the rows on the other axis, even some loop back etc. It was stated it was for very small logic workflows, instead of a very small fpga. It is sort of like at the routing logic level. Trying to use it other ways, was the mistaken issue. The issues were: that the forth community doesn't operate like that; the market was going collapse into integration anyway; and it didn't have easy general purpose programmability in mind.

A lot of your arguments are just excuses. You then put insulting nonsense in the rest of the message.

Am I right.

> > You said you have a one product company for some military application?

> I never said anything about the military.

My apologies, it took me a while to find it again. You said: "I run a company that sells one product to a company that orders when they get government contracts. So I've had years with zero sales or profit."

So, which part of the government, and what sort of product?

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 3:11:32 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 10:12:45 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:

>> "It's" was the historical possessive, as explained.
> OMG! By "historical possessive".....

...

> > You know that GA, has talked about being approached to develop options to demonstrate (presumably based on the existing chip) but the client obviously went with another option. That is usually protected by NDA. As I rightly said in business, NDAs can cover these things, whatever type of NDA document, incase you were planning on going there.. If you have an axe to grind don't take it out on people. You also notice I, and others here, don't say GA did things contrary to what is known.

...

> > How do you get that from what I. I am writing? I know this is very limited, and what could have helped a bit.
> > At that point the device has lost all it's advantages and have about the same transistor count per CPU as the 8086.
> > With memory, that the 8086 didn't have, otherwise it would be close to 1000-4000 transistors per actual processor. I would dump the execution memory for the core hooked to external execute memory. Actually, were we talking about a piece of wire (ultra narrow) chip, 5ghz, maybe 8 core? That was talking about a modern process. So, it should fit.
> There is no point in discussing the number of transistors. In a modern process the CPU itself has so few transistors as to be counted as zero. What is useful. is doing something of value with the transistors.

...

> I think having invented a language gives one a certain gravitas that helps to sell unique ideas even when they are not well thought out.

There was an ancient mini computer with some similarities before it.

...

> > One thing I must say. Is the GA, can be thought as a chip where you can stick custom routines in each address space in a fab run, and use the processor memories as further customisations and working memory.

> Which by itself is pointless. It has to be shown how to use this for applications. The two big limitations are the poor point to point communications and the tiny memory of each processor. Both because no one wrote any significant code before making the chip. Intel tests every chip they make with many, many lines of code in simulation long before laying out any mask sets.. GA could have done this as well. Instead they wait for silicon and end up cobbling a few (very few) examples that impress no one. 10 Mbps Ethernet??? Why not just say, "we can't do useful Internet on this device". How do you do USB support? Add an MCU chip with Ethernet!

> > Otherwise, it just gets close to being a software filter stage, and not much more fitting in the memories of the current end user chip. My old application, a projection video game, the single core with a main memory, would have been fine, as I was going do vector graphics, and use the array for calculations and limited 3D calculations. Very simple and close to what I needed. But, they didn't give one core that mount of power. I could sit here all day and talk about ways to improve the design, then I would be just giving away most of my secrets here for nothing. The issue was, they didn't do this. Why didn't they sit down and nut out some simple improvements like these?

> You seem to misunderstand the F18A. It is a thought experiment, a concept not intended to do anything in particular, but an idea looking for a purpose. The GA144 is another thought experiment about cobbling together many small processors, again without trying to solve any problem. Talking about larger memory on a single processor offends both of these ideas.

No, you have just got a wrong premise. You are the sort of person who has to be told how to think. You were told years ago that this was not very suitable for software digital radio communications, but you insisted, and you are disgruntled because it's not very suitable for easy general purpose programming and easy applications (like digital radio communications). The writing on the wall was there from the beginning. The on chip processor bit banging and small memory, did not make it the most usable for complex applications. It was chasing a dieing market, and a single core with big memory and general purpose programming with the array, was the only thing which was going save it back then. Now, options have the integration and the memory on chip. So, other integrated options, instead of this, make it hard in many cases, as you seem to agree. I talked with ARM years ago. I asked about running operating systems on their lowest end cores. They now do it, and the energy consumption has fallen a lot. So, what's the point (except it is lot more complex than like).

...

> > Rick, you are splitting hairs bringing in old 1 micron, and the speed and size compared to the current as if that was the only thing available. While, the move to 0.8 or 0.6, makes a huge difference to your arguments, not splitting hairs.

> Sorry, but you were the one who brought up old tech, not me. 1 um vs. 0.8 um makes no difference, 0.6 still not much. Again, sorry. I will say again, the GA144 used a process that was 10 years old at the time. Now you want to use the latest and greatest process to compare to devices made over an entire decade.

That's illogical. The 1980's ended at 1990. Stop wasting the time. Also, 0.8 microns versus 1 micron, if it was a true measurement, was 64% of the size, a big drop in space. Wasn't the 486 similar transistor count? So, 0..6, is 36% of the size. Remember, I'm not arguing about the programming of it here. Just sticking to the track, not going off on tangents when the previous argument was not right. Even the 1 micron was a tangent of yours, as I was stating the style of difficult programming more suited the 1980's metaphorically, while not saying they couldn't do it either.

On 10/12/2021 06:08, Wayne morellini wrote:
> You are picking little things out, about being wrong. Like historical possessive use of
> "it's", avoiding that it is in use both ways today.
> ...
> Yes, it's not the most normal usage, but not really the wrong way in the "living language", > as English is called. Eventually, "affect" will become "effect" at this rate too, and
> maybe even "too" will disappear (we hope not), as has been going on in reduction in
> languages in history. An English grammar teacher doesn't make a great writer, just
> somebody who parrots grammar rather than writes greatly.

Not everyone designs computer chips but grammar is what we use every day and worth
getting right. Including the use of usenet-friendly line lengths so that we may
follow who said what in quoted conversations.

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200217-have-we-murdered-the-apostrophe

'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.'

On Thursday, 9 December 2021 at 20:58:22 UTC, dxforth wrote:
> On 10/12/2021 06:08, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > You are picking little things out, about being wrong. Like historical possessive use of
> > "it's", avoiding that it is in use both ways today.
> > ...
> > Yes, it's not the most normal usage, but not really the wrong way in the "living language", > as English is called. Eventually, "affect" will become "effect" at this rate too, and
> > maybe even "too" will disappear (we hope not), as has been going on in reduction in
> > languages in history. An English grammar teacher doesn't make a great writer, just
> > somebody who parrots grammar rather than writes greatly.
> Not everyone designs computer chips but grammar is what we use every day and worth
> getting right. Including the use of usenet-friendly line lengths so that we may
> follow who said what in quoted conversations.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200217-have-we-murdered-the-apostrophe
>
> 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.'

People have not changed
DNA has not changed.

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

Have a Wonderful Chistmas - or at least a Festive Season
and Stay Healthy and Survive.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2021, 06:58 dxforth, <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/12/2021 06:08, Wayne morellini wrote:
> Not everyone designs computer chips but grammar is what we use every day and worth
getting right. Including the use of usenet-friendly line lengths so that we may
follow who said what in quoted conversations.

Sorry DXForth. The Google groups input fields are giving me grief, so I've been editing in the mail client. It refuses to yield the attribution level sometimes, and I also dont get indications of other issues with lines here. Things are a little awry (??), With a number of other things happening. The main issue is having to spend up to 5 hours in a day to respond to single messages.

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200217-have-we-murdered-the-apostrophe

Tha is due that, agrees with some of what I'm saying.

You see what is happening. I don't know what I typed from the changes made by the keyboard app. I think it was 'Thanks for that, it agrees with some of what I am saying'.

'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.'

That's right.

'The use of language, is to convey meaning and understanding correctly. To successfully communicate, is to convey such'. Not by, not doing so with correct grammar. That just makes one a ding dong. The world is too full of them. 'Though you show them truth and wisdom, they cannot accept, lest it be by an ideal. Such is the..For the ideal of truth and wisdom, is enough'.

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 9:59:04 PM UTC+10, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 December 2021 at 20:58:22 UTC, dxforth wrote:
> > On 10/12/2021 06:08, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > Not everyone designs computer chips but grammar is what we use every day and worth
> > getting right. Including the use of usenet-friendly line lengths so that we may
> > follow who said what in quoted conversations.
> >
> > https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200217-have-we-murdered-the-apostrophe
> >
> > 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.'
> People have not changed
> DNA has not changed.
>
> 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
>
> Have a Wonderful Chistmas - or at least a Festive Season
> and Stay Healthy and Survive.

I wouldn't go that far. People are entitled to right opinion, not just the other stuff, all over us. I was going to talk to the guy about doing a product, without all the other stuff. The question is, can one work together without getting hung up on other things. I listen to people, and if they make sense, great, if they think they make sense, not so great. Content is more important than presentation. Get the content right first, save the presentation for marketing and end production phases. Casual correspondence, understandably, should be more free form. :)

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 6:59:04 AM UTC-5, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 December 2021 at 20:58:22 UTC, dxforth wrote:
> > On 10/12/2021 06:08, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > You are picking little things out, about being wrong. Like historical possessive use of
> > > "it's", avoiding that it is in use both ways today.
> > > ...
> > > Yes, it's not the most normal usage, but not really the wrong way in the "living language", > as English is called. Eventually, "affect" will become "effect" at this rate too, and
> > > maybe even "too" will disappear (we hope not), as has been going on in reduction in
> > > languages in history. An English grammar teacher doesn't make a great writer, just
> > > somebody who parrots grammar rather than writes greatly.
> > Not everyone designs computer chips but grammar is what we use every day and worth
> > getting right. Including the use of usenet-friendly line lengths so that we may
> > follow who said what in quoted conversations.
> >
> > https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200217-have-we-murdered-the-apostrophe
> >
> > 'It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.'
> People have not changed
> DNA has not changed.
>
> 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

What a strange person you are. Please don't pretend to speak for me... ever.

--

Rick C.

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

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:13:48 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote::
> > > On 10/12/2021 06:08, Wayne morellini wrote:
>
> What a strange

It's obvious who you are. You had your flood of chances. Why you even bother to turn up here to harrass us, is the absurdity.

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 2:08:45 PM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
> I think it's time we stopped this. You are getting in front of people's lives. You don't read fully, then argue from not reading in a self entitled way, interfering. You are picking little things out, about being wrong. Like historical possessive use of "it's", avoiding that it is in use both ways today.

It has been my opinion from the start that you should stop your erroneous posting. You fail to understand context of what I say and this is a perfect example. I complained that your sentence construction is so poor that I have trouble understanding what you intend to say. You make more mistakes while trying to defend your poor writing and I point those out. Now you complain I am nit picking while in fact it is your poor use of the English language (which you have never acknowledged is your first language) that prompted the entire sub-discussion.

> You are talking in destructive criticism. Don't matter how wrong we show you, you just come back trying to prove yourself in some other way. You are stuck, that the other person has moved on from 'it's' but can't except that, as you try to get advantage from it. Yes, it's not the most normal usage, but not really the wrong way in the "living language", as English is called. Eventually, "affect" will become "effect" at this rate too, and maybe even "too" will disappear (we hope not), as has been going on in reduction in languages in history. An English grammar teacher doesn't make a great writer, just somebody who parrots grammar rather than writes greatly.

The trouble is you have not proven me wrong in any way whatsoever. You fail to understand simple logic and instead change the point being discussed. Evasion is a great debating technique if all you want to do is not allow anyone to show how you are wrong. If you want to learn something you need to pay attention and understand what is being said to you.

> The continuos negativity is really too much. Sophisticated conversations do infer (meaning). Or, "sophisticated conversation infer". Or, "sophisticated conversations.." as "infer" was already used. It is also the ability in design, to fill in the blanks.

I agree that negativity is bad. I don't understand why you keep being so negative rather than to discuss the points at issue?

> I never said GA didn't make any sales, but I acknowledge they have stated they do work for others. You did ask about things they could be keeping secret, for, as I did say, either their own reasons of image, or because of NDA. But, you can't accept that you have no real proof, and argue from an 'absence of proof is proof of absence' argument, which is one of the fallacy arguments used by negative people who have no proof, inorder to act like they have proof, and therefore are significant. More knowledge means more words, and more skill means more ability to access, order and work knowledge. Being right is about agreeing with truth. It's rather better to, not presume the worse and trash people, like the company talked about here, instead.

It was I who said GA is a failure because they are not selling a significant number of chips and are not actively working on a new design. I only pointed out that if they were selling chips they would talk about that as no NDA would preclude a company from mentioning that they are not a failure. It is never in a company's best interest to look like a failure. They typically crow to the rooftops about every sign they are still alive. You have to take GA's pulse or hold a mirror to their nose to see if they are breathing. No NDA would preclude a company saying they are alive.

> Let's see, you made some sort of mistake, it was countered, that the architecture with some cores etc could fit, and then you try to shift the conversation to make out transistor and processor core density doesn't matter, which is irrelevant, on order to avoid admitting wrong.

Huh? So now you are going to resurrect a part of the discussion, out of context, with no quotes of any kind?

> You misunderstand (while accusing the other person of misunderstanding) about the "F18A" and the GA144. They suit workflows that go straight across the chip and out the other side, adding a bit of processing at each stage, like was expressed. Easy to program (more or less, due to the communications stage). One can even have some input on the rows on the other axis, even some loop back etc. It was stated it was for very small logic workflows, instead of a very small fpga. It is sort of like at the routing logic level. Trying to use it other ways, was the mistaken issue. The issues were: that the forth community doesn't operate like that; the market was going collapse into integration anyway; and it didn't have easy general purpose programmability in mind.

Exactly. The structure of the GA144 and the comms capability of the F18A are such that ONLY designs such as you described are suitable. Trying to map problems to this solution is very non-trivial other than a few specific applications. This is true enough that even the reference designs are very limited. So this returns to my original point that the GA144 is a solution looking for a problem that it can solve.

> A lot of your arguments are just excuses. You then put insulting nonsense in the rest of the message.

You mean like posting a point with no context, no quotation, just a claim?

> Am I right.
> > > You said you have a one product company for some military application?
>
> > I never said anything about the military.
> My apologies, it took me a while to find it again. You said: "I run a company that sells one product to a company that orders when they get government contracts. So I've had years with zero sales or profit."
>
> So, which part of the government, and what sort of product?

You should be aware that this is exactly the sort of information that is often covered by NDA. Also, it is not at all relevant to anything we've discussed. The relevant part is that the company is similar to GA in that it mostly operates in suspended animation using very few resources until rains come to the dessert and the flowers bloom again. We are still waiting for the rain to come to GA.

> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 3:11:32 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 10:12:45 AM UTC-5, Wayne morellini wrote:
>
> >> "It's" was the historical possessive, as explained.
> > OMG! By "historical possessive".....
>
> ..
> > > You know that GA, has talked about being approached to develop options to demonstrate (presumably based on the existing chip) but the client obviously went with another option. That is usually protected by NDA. As I rightly said in business, NDAs can cover these things, whatever type of NDA document, incase you were planning on going there.. If you have an axe to grind don't take it out on people. You also notice I, and others here, don't say GA did things contrary to what is known.
> ..
> > > How do you get that from what I. I am writing? I know this is very limited, and what could have helped a bit.
> > > At that point the device has lost all it's advantages and have about the same transistor count per CPU as the 8086.
> > > With memory, that the 8086 didn't have, otherwise it would be close to 1000-4000 transistors per actual processor. I would dump the execution memory for the core hooked to external execute memory. Actually, were we talking about a piece of wire (ultra narrow) chip, 5ghz, maybe 8 core? That was talking about a modern process. So, it should fit.
> > There is no point in discussing the number of transistors. In a modern process the CPU itself has so few transistors as to be counted as zero. What is useful. is doing something of value with the transistors.
> ..
> > I think having invented a language gives one a certain gravitas that helps to sell unique ideas even when they are not well thought out.
> There was an ancient mini computer with some similarities before it.
>
> ..
> > > One thing I must say. Is the GA, can be thought as a chip where you can stick custom routines in each address space in a fab run, and use the processor memories as further customisations and working memory.
>
> > Which by itself is pointless. It has to be shown how to use this for applications. The two big limitations are the poor point to point communications and the tiny memory of each processor. Both because no one wrote any significant code before making the chip. Intel tests every chip they make with many, many lines of code in simulation long before laying out any mask sets. GA could have done this as well. Instead they wait for silicon and end up cobbling a few (very few) examples that impress no one. 10 Mbps Ethernet??? Why not just say, "we can't do useful Internet on this device". How do you do USB support? Add an MCU chip with Ethernet!
>
> > You seem to misunderstand the F18A. It is a thought experiment, a concept not intended to do anything in particular, but an idea looking for a purpose. The GA144 is another thought experiment about cobbling together many small processors, again without trying to solve any problem. Talking about larger memory on a single processor offends both of these ideas.
> No, you have just got a wrong premise. You are the sort of person who has to be told how to think. You were told years ago that this was not very suitable for software digital radio communications, but you insisted, and you are disgruntled because it's not very suitable for easy general purpose programming and easy applications (like digital radio communications). The writing on the wall was there from the beginning. The on chip processor bit banging and small memory, did not make it the most usable for complex applications. It was chasing a dieing market, and a single core with big memory and general purpose programming with the array, was the only thing which was going save it back then. Now, options have the integration and the memory on chip. So, other integrated options, instead of this, make it hard in many cases, as you seem to agree. I talked with ARM years ago. I asked about running operating systems on their lowest end cores. They now do it, and the energy consumption has fallen a lot. So, what's the point (except it is lot more complex than like).

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> writes:
> the GA144 ... It's an embedded computer, an MCU which has a very
> different application space. Unfortunately, the GA144 has no
> identified application space, so it has no market and no sales to
> speak of. I bought three of them. Does that count?

If you bought 3 chips that's 432 processors, so it's a start ;-).

More srsly an MCU with ~128 bytes of ram (like the midrange ATTinys) is
perfectly useful and respectable. I've been programming those things a
little bit recently. But, they usually have 4K or more of program store
on the MCU. Having to use the GA144 ram as program memory (sharing it
with application data), or being limited to the 64 words (= 144 bytes)
of mask rom at each node, is horribly constricting, as the code on the
GA site shows. They had to do crazy things to make even simple programs
fit.

It also didn't help that the Polyforth VM that they include in the rom
on 3 the of the GA144 nodes is completely undocumented. They were very
eager for someone to target a C compiler to the GA144, so I remember
looking at the code for that VM but finding it more confusing than I was
willing to deal with.

They said something at one point about a later chip possibly having
flash memory for programs, which would help a lot. Flash apparently
needs a different fab process. A block of ram would be just as good
though. Was there ever even a proposed application that would use most
or all of the 144 nodes? The GA144's predecessor (the SeaFORTH) had 40
nodes, and I think there may have been one with 28 nodes, maybe earlier.
So if they replaced half the GA144's nodes with ram, they might have
been better off.

I had one idea for a GA144 application that couldn't easily be done in a
conventional MCU because it needed very low latency i/o (a few ns from
input to output), but I decided after a while that it would be easier to
do that with a small FPGA.

Wayne Morellini is right that we don't have ironclad mathematical proof
that GA isn't getting billion-dollar deals from hush-hush customers and
keeping quiet about them. But, in the real world, such deals would
result in financial expansion of the company, that would be visible as
new hiring, new products, carefully worded announcements, GA staff
driving Ferraris around, etc. So there is decent practical inference
that such deals aren't happening.

I do keep wondering how many LUT4 it would take to implement an F18-like
processor (e.g. b16-small) in an FPGA. There is supposedly a 50 cent
FPGA now with 1000 LUT (no idea of block ram). If a reasonably fast
stack processor can fit in < 500 of that, leaving the user 500 for other
purposes, that seems like a useful alternative to the RISC-V that
everyone wants to use now. It apparently takes 1000 LUT to make even a
very slow RISC-V.

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 9:43:52 PM UTC+3, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> writes:

> More srsly an MCU with ~128 bytes of ram (like the midrange ATTinys) is
> perfectly useful and respectable. I've been programming those things a
> little bit recently. But, they usually have 4K or more of program store
> on the MCU. Having to use the GA144 ram as program memory (sharing it
> with application data), or being limited to the 64 words (= 144 bytes)
> of mask rom at each node, is horribly constricting, as the code on the
> GA site shows. They had to do crazy things to make even simple programs
> fit.
>

ATTiny make sense only in legacy applications. Cortex-M0 solutions are
much more powerful at lesser price.

Does GA144 have any practical usage beyond research papers? AFAIK, there
are no commercial products based on GA144...

Nickolay Kolchin <nbkolchin@gmail.com> writes:
> ATTiny make sense only in legacy applications. Cortex-M0 solutions are
> much more powerful at lesser price.

They have more cpu power, but MCU applications frequently don't care
about that. I get the impression that ATTiny still has advantages in
some areas, like in the A/D converters. I'm not a hardware guy though.

> Does GA144 have any practical usage beyond research papers? AFAIK, there
> are no commercial products based on GA144...

I believe GA tried to land some kind of deal making an electronic
signboard of some sort, using GA144 nodes to control a bunch of
different lighting elements. However, the customer apparently switched
to a conventional approach at the last minute.