On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 6:46:33 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 5:37:52 PM UTC+10, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 01:40:00 UTC, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 8:24:39 AM UTC-7, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > For me this GA144 was a test for Chuck's design system.
> > > > Brilliant design and independent of commercial CAD software.
> > > >
> > > > Who else has achieved this?
> > > > Design and have manufactured a working multiprocessor and do the related software.
> > > John Hart did this with the MiniForth processor in 1994 --- and, unlike the GA144,
> > > the MiniForth had a practical application (the laser-etcher machine) --- also, unlike the GA144,
> > > the MiniForth was tightly-coupled parallelism rather than loosely-coupled parallelism.
> > >
> > > John Hart is gone now --- most likely riding his pro-life hobby-horse at a gallop towards his own death.
> > > Now we have Tom Hart impersonating John Hart using a fake gmail address --- grossly disrespectful!
> > > The MiniForth was pretty cool in its day (late 1990s), but that day has passed.
> > Typical Hugh Aguilar BULLSHIT again.
> >
> > He does not have a clue about the subject.
> > With GA144 we are talking about silicon design - not writing code for an FPGA / CPLD..
> >
> > Anybody can use an FPGA as a basis. And have a CPU even.
> >
> > I convinced my colleagues in 1997 to write a little CPU for a a Lattice CPLD
> > - it was a nice running demo at exhibitions.
> >
> > The design made it via FH Nuremberg into a student's final work
> > - and was then manufactured at AMS into silicon.
> >
> > So, in this project there were both aspects.
> Which processor was that?
>
> Now, why pick on High? Let him live out past glories and what happened. You filling up the place with negative rubbish. He's been done wrong, you having a go at home is not going make it better.

Whoa!!! If you think Hugh has been done wrong, you have not been here long.. Hugh has done some interesting things, but he has morphed into someone who is barely functional and insists on spending his time posting attacks on anyone and everyone. He doesn't just debate technical issues, he turns them into imagined personal assaults by everyone who disagrees with him. When he is called on his rantings he makes you an enemy for life.

> Time dims the memory and skills, but he could be designing open misc FPGA (with the licensed excluding certain people from using it), or some other useful thing around here in his spare are time.

What makes you think he will ever do anything technically useful again? Every time he is challenged to do something he claims it is a plot to set him up for attacks. No, Hugh will never again do anything useful with Forth and certainly nothing useful with FPGAs which he doesn't understand.

> There are a lot of people hanging around here doing nothing, who could do something constructive. Work with mindfkex, work on forth os, work on a forth editor or development system, work on base application frame works, services, integration with common hardware or software, such as using common embedded systems and interfaces, the Linux universal driver system,window and Mac driver system. Os boot systems for PC. Somebody has to make the infrastructure for the next generation to pick up and succeed.

"Somebody has to"??? Why? What are you doing?

> I had planned on making an alternative to Forth. And misc, but got too sick. Now. I can't do what is used to by far. I just went to the kitchen filled the jug and put it in the wrong place, even though I can still debate people. To me, forth is what's inside the jug unit now, and though I can still do architecture, the details are more hidden than before, and my design more linear, but I still remember some of the old stuff. I've gone from an Steve Wozniak to a Steve Jobs in some of that. However, I had previously identified that forth and misc were lacking, and there is still a lot of gain the community could design in. We all getting old, what are we going leave behind. Because, after we go, is forth going die? It needs an open source effort, to make it a mainstream alternative. I am also taking about modelling the best instruction type and flow, and make a simpler forth with libraries, to do big things, in a simpler version than ANS. (This is ironically going in a direction which sounds like a misc spirited forth). The two aims, is to target an ideal forth processor and to target work flow to normal processors (maybe a dynamic switch in compiled code and action depending on what processor it loads in on, transparent to the user and programmer).

Wow! Your jug analogy went over my head.

What are the requirements for an "ideal forth processor"??? What makes you think a Forth processor isn't just any MCU or CPU available today?

--

Rick C.

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

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 3:22:15 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 6:46:33 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 5:37:52 PM UTC+10, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 01:40:00 UTC, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 8:24:39 AM UTC-7, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > For me this GA144 was a test for Chuck's design system.
> > > > > Brilliant design and independent of commercial CAD software.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who else has achieved this?
> > > > > Design and have manufactured a working multiprocessor and do the related software.
> > > > John Hart did this with the MiniForth processor in 1994 --- and, unlike the GA144,
> > > > the MiniForth had a practical application (the laser-etcher machine) --- also, unlike the GA144,
> > > > the MiniForth was tightly-coupled parallelism rather than loosely-coupled parallelism.
> > > >
> > > > John Hart is gone now --- most likely riding his pro-life hobby-horse at a gallop towards his own death.
> > > > Now we have Tom Hart impersonating John Hart using a fake gmail address --- grossly disrespectful!
> > > > The MiniForth was pretty cool in its day (late 1990s), but that day has passed.
> > > Typical Hugh Aguilar BULLSHIT again.
> > >
> > > He does not have a clue about the subject.
> > > With GA144 we are talking about silicon design - not writing code for an FPGA / CPLD..
> > >
> > > Anybody can use an FPGA as a basis. And have a CPU even.
> > >
> > > I convinced my colleagues in 1997 to write a little CPU for a a Lattice CPLD
> > > - it was a nice running demo at exhibitions.
> > >
> > > The design made it via FH Nuremberg into a student's final work
> > > - and was then manufactured at AMS into silicon.
> > >
> > > So, in this project there were both aspects.
> > Which processor was that?
> >
> > Now, why pick on High? Let him live out past glories and what happened. You filling up the place with negative rubbish. He's been done wrong, you having a go at home is not going make it better.
> Whoa!!! If you think Hugh has been done wrong, you have not been here long. Hugh has done some interesting things, but he has morphed into someone who is barely functional and insists on spending his time posting attacks on anyone and everyone. He doesn't just debate technical issues, he turns them into imagined personal assaults by everyone who disagrees with him. When he is called on his rantings he makes you an enemy for life.

Yes, I'm aware of these sorts of things. But reframe things from his perspective. He is wronged, he has something going, he has a bunch of people with something also going on keeping him going. This just pushes things further along. It's progressed from years ago, when they should have cared and reformed the situation, and it would have been a lot more functional. I've never seen anything like this forum (not that I get around a lot these days). It's close to a minimal level. There is a lot of dysfunction with the advancing decades here, which probably has a lot to do with the physiological type of people attracted to forth programming and the forth 'alternative'. There is a bit of illness related progressive decline with these physiological types, with people contributing not much but wasting time being negative, as they see fit, spiralling around others. It's not obvious to them due to functional decline, as logic unrelated to their internal logic becomes less obvious, as their cognitive function declines. But, at the same time, vaccines can aggravate certain people (time wherever the decline comes after a vaccine. I have a relative who has been emergency hospitalized and nearly died a little time after each vaccine, so it was not obvious it might be aggravating the undying condition, requiring a blood transfusion. But now they are before booster shots, the transfusion is holding). These are just two types of things, that could be at work lately, as I've never seen it go this far. These narrowing viewpoints, also hold, to a lesser degree, in stable businesses of types of people who are stuck in their ways, progressing as the decades go on.

> > Time dims the memory and skills, but he could be designing open misc FPGA (with the licensed excluding certain people from using it), or some other useful thing around here in his spare are time.

However Hugh strikes me as somebody who had higher intellect. There are levels of intellect, where a lower level might not perceive a higher level, as the thinking is beyond their own level and experience. As such, it's a great loss.

> What makes you think he will ever do anything technically useful again? Every time he is challenged to do something he claims it is a plot to set him up for attacks. No, Hugh will never again do anything useful with Forth and certainly nothing useful with FPGAs which he doesn't understand.

I think I might have been referring to he could be at the moment (infer in the context of not being treated poorly in the past). At the moment, everything is up in the air, but that doesn't mean it can't settle down and improve, especially if there is any physical age related health that can be treated. But again, you say according to your technical FPGA knowledge, he doesn't, but according to his ability maybe good, despite not keeping up with things. Knowledge, is knowledge, but you got to have ability, and design abilities, to use it well.

> > There are a lot of people hanging around here doing nothing, who could do something constructive. Work with mindfkex, work on forth os, work on a forth editor or development system, work on base application frame works, services, integration with common hardware or software, such as using common embedded systems and interfaces, the Linux universal driver system,window and Mac driver system. Os boot systems for PC. Somebody has to make the infrastructure for the next generation to pick up and succeed.

> "Somebody has to"??? Why?

Because things are withering away, as talked about.

>What are you doing?

A lot more than others by the look of it. Have I seen any progressive contribution from you (except for the old desire to do a software radio). This is an community architectural thing, "somebody" metaphorically referring to the community body, from which people may come out of to do something. I've talked about architectural, technological and structural improvements, which is the thing in all these things, and hardly anybody has said anything of the like. People may debate a "jot or a tittle" in ANS now, but these architectural things are major reforms to the ship. For example, people complain there is not instruction set and structural performance analysis being done on new misc designs. But, there is probably grants in the EU or the US (even China) to do instructions set performance analysis, so they can go out and apply for it instead of sitting around winging about it. It's not going between until you start a dialogue and then make it better. Frankly, on a small architecture like these, those performance analysis are going be complimented a lot by people with talent, simply sitting down and designing a better/best way to do things. I used to be able to do that, and it gets mind bending, but like exercise/gym work, you get better at it. But, rarely do you have those people. I was trying to work through a humdinger of a change, but unfortunately, as explained the cognitive decline limits what I can do these days. I'm seeking an easier profession, and Hugh's candle making (or was that, candle holder) sounds interesting, but I'm aiming a bit higher. But, what a great fall back profession. :) ("Yes, this candle goes forth, with its green in white swirl and conquers"... Pun intended.)

> > I had planned on making an alternative to Forth. And misc, but got too sick. Now. I can't do what is used to by far. I just went to the kitchen filled the jug and put it in the wrong place, even though I can still debate people. To me, forth is what's inside the jug unit now, and though I can still do architecture, the details are more hidden than before, and my design more linear, but I still remember some of the old stuff. I've gone from an Steve Wozniak to a Steve Jobs in some of that. However, I had previously identified that forth and misc were lacking, and there is still a lot of gain the community could design in. We all getting old, what are we going leave behind. Because, after we go, is forth going die? It needs an open source effort, to make it a mainstream alternative. I am also taking about modelling the best instruction type and flow, and make a simpler forth with libraries, to do big things, in a simpler version than ANS. (This is ironically going in a direction which sounds like a misc spirited forth). The two aims, is to target an ideal forth processor and to target work flow to normal processors (maybe a dynamic switch in compiled code and action depending on what processor it loads in on, transparent to the user and programmer).
> Wow! Your jug analogy went over my head.

It's very simple. The other stuff there was important. Before one could do the detailed technical design "inside the jug", which there is hundreds of years of accumulated technology history in there, if working from scratch from funding different raw materials in ancient history), now it's more murky inside, and you can see and design the jug outside, but you can do less of the insides of the jug. The jug becomes less of a series of technologies and component design, and more of an enclosure that contains such things, you no longer are fully onto. Not that I don't have a lot of left over stuff I could direct, but we normal people, are all approaching a "hello world" level of programming as we decline.

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 1:41:18 PM UTC-6, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 3:22:15 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 6:46:33 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 5:37:52 PM UTC+10, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, 14 December 2021 at 01:40:00 UTC, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, December 13, 2021 at 8:24:39 AM UTC-7, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > For me this GA144 was a test for Chuck's design system.
> > > > > > Brilliant design and independent of commercial CAD software.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who else has achieved this?
> > > > > > Design and have manufactured a working multiprocessor and do the related software.
> > > > > John Hart did this with the MiniForth processor in 1994 --- and, unlike the GA144,
> > > > > the MiniForth had a practical application (the laser-etcher machine) --- also, unlike the GA144,
> > > > > the MiniForth was tightly-coupled parallelism rather than loosely-coupled parallelism.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Hart is gone now --- most likely riding his pro-life hobby-horse at a gallop towards his own death.
> > > > > Now we have Tom Hart impersonating John Hart using a fake gmail address --- grossly disrespectful!
> > > > > The MiniForth was pretty cool in its day (late 1990s), but that day has passed.
> > > > Typical Hugh Aguilar BULLSHIT again.
> > > >
> > > > He does not have a clue about the subject.
> > > > With GA144 we are talking about silicon design - not writing code for an FPGA / CPLD..
> > > >
> > > > Anybody can use an FPGA as a basis. And have a CPU even.
> > > >
> > > > I convinced my colleagues in 1997 to write a little CPU for a a Lattice CPLD
> > > > - it was a nice running demo at exhibitions.
> > > >
> > > > The design made it via FH Nuremberg into a student's final work
> > > > - and was then manufactured at AMS into silicon.
> > > >
> > > > So, in this project there were both aspects.
> > > Which processor was that?
> > >
> > > Now, why pick on High? Let him live out past glories and what happened. You filling up the place with negative rubbish. He's been done wrong, you having a go at home is not going make it better.
> > Whoa!!! If you think Hugh has been done wrong, you have not been here long. Hugh has done some interesting things, but he has morphed into someone who is barely functional and insists on spending his time posting attacks on anyone and everyone. He doesn't just debate technical issues, he turns them into imagined personal assaults by everyone who disagrees with him. When he is called on his rantings he makes you an enemy for life.
> Yes, I'm aware of these sorts of things. But reframe things from his perspective. He is wronged, he has something going, he has a bunch of people with something also going on keeping him going. This just pushes things further along. It's progressed from years ago, when they should have cared and reformed the situation, and it would have been a lot more functional. I've never seen anything like this forum (not that I get around a lot these days).. It's close to a minimal level. There is a lot of dysfunction with the advancing decades here, which probably has a lot to do with the physiological type of people attracted to forth programming and the forth 'alternative'. There is a bit of illness related progressive decline with these physiological types, with people contributing not much but wasting time being negative, as they see fit, spiralling around others. It's not obvious to them due to functional decline, as logic unrelated to their internal logic becomes less obvious, as their cognitive function declines. But, at the same time, vaccines can aggravate certain people (time wherever the decline comes after a vaccine. I have a relative who has been emergency hospitalized and nearly died a little time after each vaccine, so it was not obvious it might be aggravating the undying condition, requiring a blood transfusion. But now they are before booster shots, the transfusion is holding). These are just two types of things, that could be at work lately, as I've never seen it go this far. These narrowing viewpoints, also hold, to a lesser degree, in stable businesses of types of people who are stuck in their ways, progressing as the decades go on.
> > > Time dims the memory and skills, but he could be designing open misc FPGA (with the licensed excluding certain people from using it), or some other useful thing around here in his spare are time.
> However Hugh strikes me as somebody who had higher intellect. There are levels of intellect, where a lower level might not perceive a higher level, as the thinking is beyond their own level and experience. As such, it's a great loss.
> > What makes you think he will ever do anything technically useful again? Every time he is challenged to do something he claims it is a plot to set him up for attacks. No, Hugh will never again do anything useful with Forth and certainly nothing useful with FPGAs which he doesn't understand.
> I think I might have been referring to he could be at the moment (infer in the context of not being treated poorly in the past). At the moment, everything is up in the air, but that doesn't mean it can't settle down and improve, especially if there is any physical age related health that can be treated. But again, you say according to your technical FPGA knowledge, he doesn't, but according to his ability maybe good, despite not keeping up with things. Knowledge, is knowledge, but you got to have ability, and design abilities, to use it well.
> > > There are a lot of people hanging around here doing nothing, who could do something constructive. Work with mindfkex, work on forth os, work on a forth editor or development system, work on base application frame works, services, integration with common hardware or software, such as using common embedded systems and interfaces, the Linux universal driver system,window and Mac driver system. Os boot systems for PC. Somebody has to make the infrastructure for the next generation to pick up and succeed.
>
> > "Somebody has to"??? Why?
> Because things are withering away, as talked about.
>
> >What are you doing?
>
> A lot more than others by the look of it. Have I seen any progressive contribution from you (except for the old desire to do a software radio). This is an community architectural thing, "somebody" metaphorically referring to the community body, from which people may come out of to do something. I've talked about architectural, technological and structural improvements, which is the thing in all these things, and hardly anybody has said anything of the like. People may debate a "jot or a tittle" in ANS now, but these architectural things are major reforms to the ship. For example, people complain there is not instruction set and structural performance analysis being done on new misc designs. But, there is probably grants in the EU or the US (even China) to do instructions set performance analysis, so they can go out and apply for it instead of sitting around winging about it. It's not going between until you start a dialogue and then make it better. Frankly, on a small architecture like these, those performance analysis are going be complimented a lot by people with talent, simply sitting down and designing a better/best way to do things. I used to be able to do that, and it gets mind bending, but like exercise/gym work, you get better at it. But, rarely do you have those people. I was trying to work through a humdinger of a change, but unfortunately, as explained the cognitive decline limits what I can do these days. I'm seeking an easier profession, and Hugh's candle making (or was that, candle holder) sounds interesting, but I'm aiming a bit higher. But, what a great fall back profession. :) ("Yes, this candle goes forth, with its green in white swirl and conquers"... Pun intended.)
> > > I had planned on making an alternative to Forth. And misc, but got too sick. Now. I can't do what is used to by far. I just went to the kitchen filled the jug and put it in the wrong place, even though I can still debate people. To me, forth is what's inside the jug unit now, and though I can still do architecture, the details are more hidden than before, and my design more linear, but I still remember some of the old stuff. I've gone from an Steve Wozniak to a Steve Jobs in some of that. However, I had previously identified that forth and misc were lacking, and there is still a lot of gain the community could design in. We all getting old, what are we going leave behind. Because, after we go, is forth going die? It needs an open source effort, to make it a mainstream alternative. I am also taking about modelling the best instruction type and flow, and make a simpler forth with libraries, to do big things, in a simpler version than ANS. (This is ironically going in a direction which sounds like a misc spirited forth). The two aims, is to target an ideal forth processor and to target work flow to normal processors (maybe a dynamic switch in compiled code and action depending on what processor it loads in on, transparent to the user and programmer).
> > Wow! Your jug analogy went over my head.
> It's very simple. The other stuff there was important. Before one could do the detailed technical design "inside the jug", which there is hundreds of years of accumulated technology history in there, if working from scratch from funding different raw materials in ancient history), now it's more murky inside, and you can see and design the jug outside, but you can do less of the insides of the jug. The jug becomes less of a series of technologies and component design, and more of an enclosure that contains such things, you no longer are fully onto. Not that I don't have a lot of left over stuff I could direct, but we normal people, are all approaching a "hello world" level of programming as we decline.
> > What are the requirements for an "ideal forth processor"??? What makes you think a Forth processor isn't just any MCU or CPU available today?
> They don't have forth instruction sets! The point was to try to find the best forth processor architecture and adopt that as standard, but also the best compilation to normal processors (the mcu CPU being a forth processor, as you said). Such a compile might entail some instruction reordering and programming in such a way that suits both targets from the start. But, let's face it, the real future lays in the best forth instruction set in hardware. Like it or not, a common example that comes up, is how forth fitted in the smallest or lowest energy space, which makes it a very good target among conventional CPU's (compared to next level quantum processing units) and, ironically, for highest performance, as thermal barrier is the limiting factor in current performance density, and lower transistor counts, and more overclockability counts, with smaller memory footprints, and shorter accumulative line lengths in all cases, able to go into simpler dram processes, which offer great performance density, but seeking out a CPU which can fit into their cheap limited layer processes. A lot of the work in the age of custom asic cells for high performance areas, becomes administrative and time switching. The CPU becomes decision maker directing cells and interacting between them and the user/front end. It actual brings up the question, of forth misc processor on mobile and desktop and server memory, with asic cells offering performance acceleration services. This is potentially a big thing on servers and mobile chips, and if there is memory on insulator potential there, even higher local memory performance for any cores. Even if you have to find a Chinese memory factory effort, they would be interested. You keep your tech rights and trade secrets seperate, offer good service, and if they got any business sense, they should respect that, and if you thru don't, you finish up your contracts and search for another partner, which by the time you already have shown advantage on the market, shouldn't be as difficult as before. Seeing a way out of the forest, is what your ceo, and technical staff should do.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Rick C.
> >
> > ----- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> > ----- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
]>>
]>>find the best forth processor architecture and adopt that as standard...
]>>real future lays in the best forth instruction set in hardware...
My goal is to implement (in an FPGA) an optimized ISA for several different architectures.
A stack/accumulator hybrid machine
A register oriented machine
A memory/register hybrid machine
And improved legacy machines (ISA changes to support four data sizes, configurable address size, remove mistakes of the past)
Using similar implementation techniques and similar performance.

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 3:41:18 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 3:22:15 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 6:46:33 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > >
> > > Now, why pick on High? Let him live out past glories and what happened. You filling up the place with negative rubbish. He's been done wrong, you having a go at home is not going make it better.
> > Whoa!!! If you think Hugh has been done wrong, you have not been here long. Hugh has done some interesting things, but he has morphed into someone who is barely functional and insists on spending his time posting attacks on anyone and everyone. He doesn't just debate technical issues, he turns them into imagined personal assaults by everyone who disagrees with him. When he is called on his rantings he makes you an enemy for life.
> Yes, I'm aware of these sorts of things. But reframe things from his perspective. He is wronged, he has something going, he has a bunch of people with something also going on keeping him going.

That's the problem, Hugh doesn't have anything going on. He likes to rant and rave, but never contributes anything. Lots of people here don't contribute much, but without the ranting and hating that Hugh brings.

> This just pushes things further along. It's progressed from years ago, when they should have cared and reformed the situation, and it would have been a lot more functional.

"They"? Who "they"??? There is literally nothing anyone can do about Hugh's situation unless they are a shrink! Literally!!! Do you not see that in Hugh? I guess you haven't been here long enough to have seen his rants about Elizabeth Rather. They literally are insane! He does similar rants about others including myself, mostly because I point out his mental illness openly.

> I've never seen anything like this forum (not that I get around a lot these days). It's close to a minimal level. There is a lot of dysfunction with the advancing decades here, which probably has a lot to do with the physiological type of people attracted to forth programming and the forth 'alternative'. There is a bit of illness related progressive decline with these physiological types, with people contributing not much but wasting time being negative, as they see fit, spiralling around others. It's not obvious to them due to functional decline, as logic unrelated to their internal logic becomes less obvious, as their cognitive function declines. But, at the same time, vaccines can aggravate certain people (time wherever the decline comes after a vaccine. I have a relative who has been emergency hospitalized and nearly died a little time after each vaccine, so it was not obvious it might be aggravating the undying condition, requiring a blood transfusion. But now they are before booster shots, the transfusion is holding). These are just two types of things, that could be at work lately, as I've never seen it go this far. These narrowing viewpoints, also hold, to a lesser degree, in stable businesses of types of people who are stuck in their ways, progressing as the decades go on.

Ok, that digression tells me a lot about you, but most of which I've already figured out.

> > > Time dims the memory and skills, but he could be designing open misc FPGA (with the licensed excluding certain people from using it), or some other useful thing around here in his spare are time.
> However Hugh strikes me as somebody who had higher intellect.

"Had" is the right term. I suppose he is still very bright, but it can't manifest given his compulsive behaviors.

> There are levels of intellect, where a lower level might not perceive a higher level, as the thinking is beyond their own level and experience. As such, it's a great loss.
> > What makes you think he will ever do anything technically useful again? Every time he is challenged to do something he claims it is a plot to set him up for attacks. No, Hugh will never again do anything useful with Forth and certainly nothing useful with FPGAs which he doesn't understand.
> I think I might have been referring to he could be at the moment (infer in the context of not being treated poorly in the past). At the moment, everything is up in the air, but that doesn't mean it can't settle down and improve, especially if there is any physical age related health that can be treated. But again, you say according to your technical FPGA knowledge, he doesn't, but according to his ability maybe good, despite not keeping up with things. Knowledge, is knowledge, but you got to have ability, and design abilities, to use it well.

Hugh won't settle down. Every time a discussion is started he spins away like a top off the table and bangs into the walls. Hugh's issue with FPGAs is not that he is not current, it's because he got bad second hand info and now won't listen to anything else. He literally knows nothing about FPGAs..

> > > There are a lot of people hanging around here doing nothing, who could do something constructive. Work with mindfkex, work on forth os, work on a forth editor or development system, work on base application frame works, services, integration with common hardware or software, such as using common embedded systems and interfaces, the Linux universal driver system,window and Mac driver system. Os boot systems for PC. Somebody has to make the infrastructure for the next generation to pick up and succeed.
>
> > "Somebody has to"??? Why?
> Because things are withering away, as talked about.

But no one "has" to do anything. Forth has existed for many years and will continue into obscurity. Ok, no one has to do anything about it and likely won't.

> >What are you doing?
>
> A lot more than others by the look of it. Have I seen any progressive contribution from you (except for the old desire to do a software radio).

Ah, I see. You have done nothing and so you feel qualified to criticize others. Good job!

> This is an community architectural thing, "somebody" metaphorically referring to the community body, from which people may come out of to do something. I've talked about architectural, technological and structural improvements, which is the thing in all these things, and hardly anybody has said anything of the like. People may debate a "jot or a tittle" in ANS now, but these architectural things are major reforms to the ship. For example, people complain there is not instruction set and structural performance analysis being done on new misc designs. But, there is probably grants in the EU or the US (even China) to do instructions set performance analysis, so they can go out and apply for it instead of sitting around winging about it. It's not going between until you start a dialogue and then make it better. Frankly, on a small architecture like these, those performance analysis are going be complimented a lot by people with talent, simply sitting down and designing a better/best way to do things. I used to be able to do that, and it gets mind bending, but like exercise/gym work, you get better at it. But, rarely do you have those people. I was trying to work through a humdinger of a change, but unfortunately, as explained the cognitive decline limits what I can do these days. I'm seeking an easier profession, and Hugh's candle making (or was that, candle holder) sounds interesting, but I'm aiming a bit higher. But, what a great fall back profession. :) ("Yes, this candle goes forth, with its green in white swirl and conquers"... Pun intended.)
> > > I had planned on making an alternative to Forth. And misc, but got too sick. Now. I can't do what is used to by far. I just went to the kitchen filled the jug and put it in the wrong place, even though I can still debate people. To me, forth is what's inside the jug unit now, and though I can still do architecture, the details are more hidden than before, and my design more linear, but I still remember some of the old stuff. I've gone from an Steve Wozniak to a Steve Jobs in some of that. However, I had previously identified that forth and misc were lacking, and there is still a lot of gain the community could design in. We all getting old, what are we going leave behind. Because, after we go, is forth going die? It needs an open source effort, to make it a mainstream alternative. I am also taking about modelling the best instruction type and flow, and make a simpler forth with libraries, to do big things, in a simpler version than ANS. (This is ironically going in a direction which sounds like a misc spirited forth). The two aims, is to target an ideal forth processor and to target work flow to normal processors (maybe a dynamic switch in compiled code and action depending on what processor it loads in on, transparent to the user and programmer).
> > Wow! Your jug analogy went over my head.
> It's very simple. The other stuff there was important. Before one could do the detailed technical design "inside the jug", which there is hundreds of years of accumulated technology history in there, if working from scratch from funding different raw materials in ancient history), now it's more murky inside, and you can see and design the jug outside, but you can do less of the insides of the jug. The jug becomes less of a series of technologies and component design, and more of an enclosure that contains such things, you no longer are fully onto. Not that I don't have a lot of left over stuff I could direct, but we normal people, are all approaching a "hello world" level of programming as we decline.
> > What are the requirements for an "ideal forth processor"??? What makes you think a Forth processor isn't just any MCU or CPU available today?
> They don't have forth instruction sets!

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 6:36:29 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 3:41:18 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 3:22:15 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 15, 2021 at 6:46:33 PM UTC-4, Wayne morellini wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Now, why pick on High? Let him live out past glories and what happened. You filling up

...

> > I've never seen anything like this forum (not that I get around a lot these days). It's close to a minimal level. There is a lot of dysfunction with the advancing decades here, which probably has a lot to do with the physiological type of people attracted to forth programming and the forth 'alternative'. There is a bit of illness related progressive decline with these physiological types, with people contributing not much but wasting time being negative, as they see fit, spiralling around others. It's not obvious to them due to functional decline, as logic unrelated to their internal logic becomes less obvious, as their cognitive function declines. But, at the same time, vaccines can aggravate certain people (time wherever the decline comes after a vaccine. I have a relative who has been emergency hospitalized and nearly died a little time after each vaccine, so it was not obvious it might be aggravating the undying condition, requiring a blood transfusion. But now they are before booster shots, the transfusion is holding). These are just two types of things, that could be at work lately, as I've never seen it go this far. These narrowing viewpoints, also hold, to a lesser degree, in stable businesses of types of people who are stuck in their ways, progressing as the decades go on.
> Ok, that digression tells me a lot about you, but most of which I've already figured out.

Not so.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiology

...
> > > "Somebody has to"??? Why?
> > Because things are withering away, as talked about.
> But no one "has" to do anything. Forth has existed for many years and will continue into obscurity. Ok, no one has to do anything about it and likely won't.

"Into obscurity"

> > >What are you doing?
> >
> > A lot more than others by the look of it. Have I seen any progressive contribution from you (except for the old desire to do a software radio).
> Ah, I see. You have done nothing and so you feel qualified to criticize others. Good job!

I've worked out sound design architecture advice, worth more than anything I've seen you do, and you have, apart from criticise, done what? Criticising is easy.

> > > What are the requirements for an "ideal forth processor"??? What makes you think a Forth processor isn't just any MCU or CPU available today?
> > They don't have forth instruction sets!
> I've never seen a CPU with a Forth instruction set. NEVER!

You been talking about them, and don't deny novix/Harris, misc are not, just different forms of the forth machine (though misc strains it a bit more).

> > The point was to try to find the best forth processor architecture and adopt that as standard,
> Standard??? For what??? Do you really think anyone is going to give a crap what processor a bunch of Forth advocates pick?

That doesn't make sense. The processor is the basis of more work and a more complete forth. It matters to developers on forth. If it is good. It is sellable.

> It does???

What do you mean?

>> Seeing a way out of the forest, is what your ceo, and technical staff should do.
> Wow.

Better than being logged.

>
> --
>
> Rick C.

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 6:28:01 AM UTC+10, James Brakefield wrote:
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 1:41:18 PM UTC-6, Wayne morellini wrote:

> ]>>
> ]>>find the best forth processor architecture and adopt that as standard...
> ]>>real future lays in the best forth instruction set in hardware...
> My goal is to implement (in an FPGA) an optimized ISA for several different architectures.
> A stack/accumulator hybrid machine
> A register oriented machine
> A memory/register hybrid machine
> And improved legacy machines (ISA changes to support four data sizes, configurable address size, remove mistakes of the past)
> Using similar implementation techniques and similar performance.
>
> The stack/accumulator hybrid has some 8-bit instructions, but mostly 16-bit instructions. A 16-bit instruction
> can hold an operation code, a stack reference (n-pick or n-stuff), option to use stack reference as a memory address
> and stack pop/push bit and stack/memory replace bit.
> Forth ISAs have great code density but don't lend themselves to multiple issue. Here an operation code, a stack/memory reference
> and some stack operators all in one instruction. By overlaying the data and return stacks onto a RISC register file hope to
> do one 16-bit instruction per clock with potential for multiple instruction issue per clock.

That's what I mean James. Good on you.

Wayne morellini <waynemorellini@gmail.com> writes:
>> Standard??? For what??? Do you really think anyone is going to give
>> a crap what processor a bunch of Forth advocates pick?
>
> That doesn't make sense. The processor is the basis of more work and
> a more complete forth. It matters to developers on forth. If it is
> good. It is sellable.

1) Forthers are not known for caring much about standards. They all
want to do their own thing. 2) There aren't enough Forthers in the
whole world for mainstream cpu manufacturers to care much about their
desires (I think that is what Rick was getting at). Of course there
will always be niche cpus like the GA144, Parallax Propeller, etc, but
they don't really "count" in the larger scheme of things. The Novix
and Harris parts were also in that category.

Any Forth-oriented cpu designs are pretty sure to be either softcores or
else targeted at niche users. Neither of those seems conducive to
standardization.

On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 11:00:17 PM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Wayne morellini <waynemo...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Standard??? For what??? Do you really think anyone is going to give
> >> a crap what processor a bunch of Forth advocates pick?
> >
> > That doesn't make sense. The processor is the basis of more work and
> > a more complete forth. It matters to developers on forth. If it is
> > good. It is sellable.
> 1) Forthers are not known for caring much about standards. They all
> want to do their own thing. 2) There aren't enough Forthers in the
> whole world for mainstream cpu manufacturers to care much about their
> desires (I think that is what Rick was getting at).

No, what I mean is the idea that the world needs Forth to show the right way forward is absurd. Forth is just a tool. It has it's strong points and weak points. It does not need any special hardware as is shown by the many excellent implementations that run on a variety of processors. I don't know why we find various fanatics here who seem to think Forth just needs this or that to take over the world.

Forth is never going to take over the world. It isn't likely to even take over the block. It especially won't be helped by someone telling us all what we need to do to promote Forth as if they had a corner on the "insight" market.

> Of course there
> will always be niche cpus like the GA144, Parallax Propeller, etc, but
> they don't really "count" in the larger scheme of things. The Novix
> and Harris parts were also in that category.

I believe the Harris part made it into space. The trick there was to get one built and qualified. Once qualified any processor is pretty much guaranteed many years of new projects in space.

> Any Forth-oriented cpu designs are pretty sure to be either softcores or
> else targeted at niche users. Neither of those seems conducive to
> standardization.

There was a small MCU designed for very low power uses, specifically key fobs I believe. It was called the Mark something or other. Last year I learned that in the UK they use "Mark" in place of revision, so Mark 2 would be a second revision of something. Not sure if that applies to this. It was not marketed to the general community as I think they didn't fully document everything and wanted you to work with them to implement your design which they would then sell to you in the millions. Not an uncommon marketing scheme. I know I was never able to get any parts. I don't even recall enough about it to say it was a stack CPU or not, but it had a Forth compiler.

Anyone recall this CPU?

But, yes, I think stack CPUs are limited to soft cores for the most part. I believe the b16 has made it into a number of custom ASICs as hard cores. Not sure what is meant by "niche users". Any one ASIC is by definition a "niche". Every stack CPU chip I've heard of was pretty much a failure with very little usage. Am I wrong?

Standards are not often associates with products with no market.

--

Rick C.

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

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 20:24:27 -0800 (PST)
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

> There was a small MCU designed for very low power uses, specifically key fobs I believe. It was called the Mark something or other.

From the MARC4 4-bit Microcontrollers Programmer's Guide:

16.6 Instruction Set
The microcontroller instruction set is optimized for the high
level programming language qFORTH.

16.7.2 Interrupt Latency
The interrupt latency is the time from the occurrence of the
interrupt to the interrupt service routine being activated.
This is extremely short (taking between 3 to 5 machine cycles
depending on the state of the core).

Table 2-1. Instruction Set Overview
.-------------------------------------------------------------------.
| 00 | ADD | 10 | SHL | 20 | TABLE | 30 | [X]@ |
| 01 | ADDC | 11 | ROL | 21 | --- | 31 | [+X]@ |
| 02 | SUB | 12 | SHR | 22 | >R | 32 | [X-]@ |
| 03 | SUBB | 13 | ROR | 23 | I R@ | 33 | [>X]@ $xx |
| 04 | XOR | 14 | INC | 24 | --- | 34 | [Y]@ |
| 05 | AND | 15 | DEC | 25 | EXIT | 35 | [+Y]@ |
| 06 | CMP_EQ | 16 | DAA | 26 | SWAP | 36 | [Y-]@ |
| 07 | CMP_NE | 17 | NOT | 27 | OVER | 37 | [>Y]@ $xx |
| 08 | CMP_LT | 18 | TOG_BF | 28 | 2>R | 38 | [X]! |
| 09 | CMP_LE | 19 | SET_BCF | 29 | 3>R | 39 | [+X]! |
| 0A | CMP_GT | 1A | DI | 2A | 2R@ | 3A | [X-]! |
| 0B | CMP_GE | 1B | IN | 2B | 3R@ | 3B | [>X]! $xx |
| 0C | OR | 1C | DECR | 2C | ROT | 3C | [Y]! |
| 0D | CCR@ | 1D | RTI | 2D | DUP | 3D | [+Y]! |
| 0E | CCR! | 1E | SWI | 2E | DROP | 3E | [Y-]! |
| 0F | SLEEP | 1F | OUT | 2F | DROPR | 3F | [>Y]! $xx |
|----+-----------+----------------+----+-----------+----+-----------|
| 40 | CALL $0xx | 50 | BRA $0xx | 60 | LIT_0 | 70 | SP@ |
| 41 | CALL $1xx | 51 | BRA $1xx | 61 | LIT_1 | 71 | RP@ |
| 42 | CALL $2xx | 52 | BRA $2xx | 62 | LIT_2 | 72 | X@ |
| 43 | CALL $3xx | 53 | BRA $3xx | 63 | LIT_3 | 73 | Y@ |
| 44 | CALL $4xx | 54 | BRA $4xx | 64 | LIT_4 | 74 | SP! |
| 45 | CALL $5xx | 55 | BRA $5xx | 65 | LIT_5 | 75 | RP! |
| 46 | CALL $6xx | 56 | BRA $6xx | 66 | LIT_6 | 76 | X! |
| 47 | CALL $7xx | 57 | BRA $7xx | 67 | LIT_7 | 77 | Y! |
| 48 | CALL $8xx | 58 | BRA $8xx | 68 | LIT_8 | 78 | >SP $xx |
| 49 | CALL $9xx | 59 | BRA $9xx | 69 | LIT_9 | 79 | >RP $xx |
| 4A | CALL $Axx | 5A | BRA $Axx | 6A | LIT_A | 7A | >X $xx |
| 4B | CALL $Bxx | 5B | BRA $Bxx | 6B | LIT_B | 7B | >Y $xx |
| 4C | CALL $Cxx | 5C | BRA $Cxx | 6C | LIT_C | 7C | NOP |
| 4D | CALL $Dxx | 5D | BRA $Dxx | 6D | LIT_D | 7D | --- |
| 4E | CALL $Exx | 5E | BRA $Exx | 6E | LIT_E | 7E | --- |
| 4F | CALL $Fxx | 5F | BRA $Fxx | 6F | LIT_F | 7F | --- |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 80..BF | SBRA $xxx | Short branch inside current page |
| C0..FF | SCALL $xxx | Short subroutine CALL into “zero page” |
'-------------------------------------------------------------------'
from: MARC4 4-bit Microcontrollers Programmer's Guide © Atmel 2004

data sheet/buy:
https://www.mouser.co.uk/c/semiconductors/wireless-rf-integrated-circuits/rf-microcontrollers-mcu/?core=MARC4

Jan Coombs
--

On 17 Dec 21 at group /comp/lang/forth in article 20211217123539.168a7978@t530
<jan4comp.lang.forth@murray-microft.co.uk> (Jan Coombs) wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 20:24:27 -0800 (PST)
> Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

>> There was a small MCU designed for very low power uses, specifically key
>> fobs I believe. It was called the Mark something or other.

some 20yrs ago I had a consulting job to salvage a MARC4 development for a
oliv green MIL shop. NDA: nothing about the application.

At this time any SilLabs 5051 was a lot faster and uses less power and
was cheaper. So this project was abandoned. See below.

> From the MARC4 4-bit Microcontrollers Programmer's Guide:

> 16.6 Instruction Set
> The microcontroller instruction set is optimized for the high
> level programming language qFORTH.

The CrossCompiler was a desaster. The very expensive Development Station
crashed every time, if target compilation was bigger than 4kB. They
promised a max of 8kB. But the bloody MARC4 Team of Telefunken never
managed this. Poor (FORTH) programmers too.

The 3 FORTH Programmers of my customer didn't obey any rules. Nearly no
comments, poor (and false!) documentation, no naming convention, no
development log... An absolute desaster.

> 16.7.2 Interrupt Latency
> The interrupt latency is the time from the occurrence of the
> interrupt to the interrupt service routine being activated.
> This is extremely short (taking between 3 to 5 machine cycles
> depending on the state of the core).

But a lot of slower as a F310...
Remember even a simple ASCII character is a DOUBLE on the MARC4

I reprogrammed the hole shit in one week (without an order!) with a Forth
on the F310 (IIRC amForth on a TCL/TC? base) including a small demo target
kit and sold it for 10.000EURO to my customer.

They were pleased! And astonished!

But 3 month later this department was sold to another mother and the
project was canceled. The new mother claimed, they have excellent C-
Programmers :] They new ones denied, what I have done in one week :)
Just bullshit Bingo and damager MONOPOLY game.

> from: MARC4 4-bit Microcontrollers Programmer's Guide ? Atmel 2004

> data sheet/buy:
> https://www.mouser.co.uk/c/semiconductors/wireless-rf-integrated-circuits/r
> f-microcontrollers-mcu/?core=MARC4

My sugestion: MARC4 DROP
I've thrown all MARC4 HW and SW some years ago.

Despite Daimler-Benz sold millions of electronic keys based on this MARC4.
They had a lot of trouble too by hacking their keys and steeling of their
cars. I think a MID (Million Dollar Desaster).

Saludos (an alle Vernünftigen, Rest sh. sig)
Wolfgang

--
Ich bin in Paraguay lebender Trollallergiker :) reply Adresse gesetzt!
Ich diskutiere zukünftig weniger mit Idioten, denn sie ziehen mich auf
ihr Niveau herunter und schlagen mich dort mit ihrer Erfahrung! :p
(lt. alter usenet Weisheit) iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, iRak, iDiot

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 1:00:17 PM UTC+10, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Wayne morellini <waynemo...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Standard??? For what??? Do you really think anyone is going to give
> >> a crap what processor a bunch of Forth advocates pick?
> >
> > That doesn't make sense. The processor is the basis of more work and
> > a more complete forth. It matters to developers on forth. If it is
> > good. It is sellable.
> 1) Forthers are not known for caring much about standards. They all
> want to do their own thing.

Paul, that is the point, there needs to be a culture shift in order for it not to die with its programmers.

> 2) There aren't enough Forthers in the
> whole world for mainstream cpu manufacturers to care much about their
> desires (I think that is what Rick was getting at).

That's not what was being spoken about. This is 100% nothing to do with what those manufacturers do (though a couple of extra instructions, and a colorforth "thumb" like mode, based in the 386 colorforth instructions it uses, would help. Intel has always been failing to get modern 32-64 bit x86 down into low energy embedded,,buy chick identified a reduced instruction set in there for forth, with only a couple of enhancements to be better again, plus you can trap and emulate all other x86 instructions, running the reduced instruction set CPU at a much higher overclock, say 10Ghz, with less energy for modest performance. Such a CPU is not to run PC software, but this way, an option exists for those products that occasionally might want to run of software or a driver. If GA, had concentrated on selling a colorforth design to Intel, they may have had MCU success, and access to Intel fabs for other things. But, that's a Steve Jobs level of call. Every company needs a Steve's Jobs Steve Wozniak like hybrid in charge, to get that growth. No company should be trying to seek dated technology continually, without better options. If it was me, I would do FPGA versions and simulations of advanced processors to sell for use on client's projects. We say, that this is what we can do on this processor, here is the simulation proof of performance, and the FPGA implementation. You are much more likely to get a batch of new chips out of that, and some customers might just go for the FPGA implementation, there are a lot of customers who can't afford custom chips. Another point, is that, it is a waste to get your top people to spend time programming a difficult architecture, rather than making better chips.. In the system above, with simpler to program chips, you have a lot more potential customers and can stratify divide talent into three divisions, and code for lower end projects can be given to the lowest division who also concentrates on application development, while the top end division concentrates on hardware design of custom chips/FPGA design/simulator (with some help from the next division down) and it's system software.. The middle division concentrates on usage of the FPGA design and some applications. This is really like 5 divisions in 3, but multi skills and gives extra tasks to do during down time, fur better utilisation big labour. Another option. Is you can pay third world people to become forth programmers, and spur on a new forth sectors in those countries. You get work done, and seed a new forth community over there).

> will always be niche cpus like the GA144, Parallax Propeller, etc, but
> they don't really "count" in the larger scheme of things. The Novix
> and Harris parts were also in that category.

Some of these are nich, due to limited targets for a given programming skill, but the Novice and Harris, had much wider usage. I wonder if the Harris or novix like design for available today as some ultracheap small mcu? It's a shame it didn't come out in 1980 or late 70's, it could have made for some interesting implementations in home computers. Look at it this way, you just have the CPU with a simple graphic circuit and peripherals. Look at what the mup 20 archived, now pair that back to 16 bits, and that's another 1970's level option.

But, here is one of the biggest market, a single or multiple core design of a general purpose version of the GA ASiC design for standard use in chip alongside the FPGA circuit, sharing resources. This is where it really gets interesting. A buyer of the chip, gets something much better than a soft cpu. They can use or not use, in addition to the FPGA, the misc circuit takes up hardly anything, and isba reduced cost. But, they also can just use the cpu and not the fpga, with the fpga turned off, its low energy. The CPU can simply dynamically activate and send jobs to the FPGA. Now, we can see how we can drop an external CPU, and make the FpGa a MCu. This solves problems for everybody all around. But, this is some to program form of large memory misc, as mup20 was. The CPU may have its small local memory sisce, and map in the on FPGA spaces. When it operates out of its local space. It operates at highest speed. If a secondarily local memory exists, it may operate at the second highest performance, and the FPGA areas, it had to compete for access, and it maybe lowest performance. The secondary local memory, might he shared between the cores, and subject to access delays, and might be used for data exchange from the fpga's (but another local memory is probably better). Programming wise, the address spaces look like a big continuos space, or banked space.

>
> Any Forth-oriented cpu designs are pretty sure to be either softcores or
> else targeted at niche users. Neither of those seems conducive to
> standardization.

It's inner forth community target standardisation, while individuals can do other things it's just a structural start point to develop other efforts off of, and language structural development. The standard becomes a forth with a virtual forth processor model that can be supported explicitly along side normal CPU support in programs. It also means, that software is optimised for any future forth CPU based on it. Towards working for forth to become a mainstream option.

On Friday, December 17, 2021 at 2:24:28 PM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 11:00:17 PM UTC-4, Paul Rubin wrote:
> > Wayne morellini <waynemo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > >> Standard??? For what??? Do you really think anyone is going to give
> > >> a crap what processor a bunch of Forth advocates pick?
> > >
> > > That doesn't make sense. The processor is the basis of more work and
> > > a more complete forth. It matters to developers on forth. If it is
> > > good. It is sellable.
> > 1) Forthers are not known for caring much about standards. They all
> > want to do their own thing. 2) There aren't enough Forthers in the
> > whole world for mainstream cpu manufacturers to care much about their
> > desires (I think that is what Rick was getting at).
> No, what I mean is the idea that the world needs Forth to show the right way forward is absurd. Forth is just a tool. It has it's strong points and weak points. It does not need any special hardware as is shown by the many excellent implementations that run on a variety of processors. I don't know why we find various fanatics here who seem to think Forth just needs this or that to take over the world.

Rick, you are being fanatical against forth, did you ever consider that is the problem? There is a lot of people here not speaking much sense trying to take something down based on past mistakes of individuals. It just interfere with progress to what can be done, better.

If you read my writing, you can get that I don't believe forth hardware is the answer for the future. It might be able to out compete conventional CPU's by far, if implemented right, but, General purpose GPU's do too, and custom ASIC even more in raw performance. The next generation of processing will make its advantages irrelevant, and some don't offer a better alternative. Magnetic quantum dot FPGA, and ASIC Quantum dots FPGA's are just two, where energy savings of using misc over arm is irrelevant, ASIC will have the performance advantage at ultra low power. But even if you did everything hardware in software misc versions, it might make such a small difference in overall consideration, as to be irrelevant a lot of the time. in that stuff. Code size savings already doesn't matter much. What don't I understand? I guarantee I have spent more time looking into these things than most people coming here. When I see people being negative for no good or logical reason, I see a fakes who are trying to project their psychological inadequacy onto something. Unfortunately, people, out there, aren't that good at catching the difference. Have a look at where you are standing, in the forth, and forth hardware, communities, and there is a cliff coming, when it gets here the community will be devastated, unless they move. The community is poor be sure they haven't done much, but there is still time to make good money, and move to establish the community into the next age, past where the cliff will move too. Standing around criticising and trying to stop any objective improvement is not helping things one bit. You can criticise GA, as much as you want, but they are, have and continue, to do far more than you have ever done. But 10x+ more is needed. You don't get a say trying to kill good improvements, or to change conversations bro something worse. If people have evidence something wrongly will be worse, they are, of course, welcome to objectively voice it. But, there is too much fight picking to bully people for no good reason, on the internet these days

> Forth is never going to take over the world. It isn't likely to even take over the block. It especially won't be helped by someone telling us all what we need to do to promote Forth as if they had a corner on the "insight" market.

Rick, it's plain to see in front of you. It's not other's insight which is the issue, it is the unneeded harm done to them. You can't even get Chuck's insight, which has it's time and place, and it was stated what it was for. It was not meant to do all applications well, or to be a be a very general purpose CPU. But it does do what it was designed to do well, with the added programming .

> But, yes, I think stack CPUs are limited to soft cores for the most part. I believe the b16 has made it into a number of custom ASICs as hard cores.

Which chips were the b16 implemented in?
...
> Every stack CPU chip I've heard of was pretty much a failure with very little usage. Am I wrong?

That's just a negative. The Harris made a success. I can't remember what happened with the silicon composer chip? I think looked into that Marc 4, and didn't like it, but it was used.

> Standards are not often associates with products with no market.

That makes not much sense here. The market is whatever market you put it in, and standards are internal standards here, for the internal market, to work out performance kinks, to make better products, and maybe offer chip products. .

Ok, found it. Been sick and busy and didn't get to it.

On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:56:23 AM UTC+10, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.

Stop right there. It has been you, yourself, misunderstanding, particularly deep contexts, which has been a complaint for a while. This is imaginary.. Your thought processes are not deep enough. Simplistically trying to provoke response for a bit of stimulation, is not the way to go.

> I complained that your sentence construction is so poor that I have trouble understanding what you intend to say.

You again, apart from the instances of sentence changes from the keyboard app, don't understand things deeply enough. We have a plague of technical people on the internet, whose reading skills don't match their technical grade, wrongly picking fights with people. In good design, complexity and reason is many levels deep, and elaborate, not simplistic. Because of this, you don't seem to realise there is not a firm rule book for English, it dynamically changes over time, depending on usage, which is why we don't speak Hittite, and Latin is now so different. You fail to realise "diversion" is pointing to a deeper truth about language. English (Anglish, a strip (of land), the same root meaning as Aryan itself, going back to an original common home land, which will be where the original prelude to the Hittite language originated from. I probably haven't stated that completely correctly) has changed a lot before the modern era, and it changes a bit by the half century to century. Refusing to understand the understandable, is failure. You could become an english teacher, with the additional knowledge above, but what you are doing is not needed.

> 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 point is that you not right because most of your other points were proven wrong or mistaken. Admit it? What a horrendous post. The point was, that your point was irrelevant, that usage supported my alternative use, when the point about discussion is where ever things are reasonably understandable. Go out with a film crew and start facing off in the worse neighbourhoods, how you can't understand them and therefore they are wrong, and see how the behaviour goes down. You are wasting time on this irrelevant dead argument.

> > 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?

Again, it is yourself who has irrelevantly just kept coming back "trying it out" negatively. Baiting, trying to trawl someone back onto your ship, while the other person is moving on.

> > 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.

That is not right. You should stop trying ro divert and manipulate things. You know that they are working on a new chip, that the NDA discussion was about contracted chips, which we are unlikely to know about, unless they choose to allow it. You don't know these things?

Most of the rest of this is irrelevant. You are trying to avoid looking 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.

> Exactly.

...

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

> > 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:

> Ah, but you digress.
>
> You have shown nothing to say the GA144 could not be used as a software defined radio.

Wasn't I talking about digital wireless exclusively, and you talking about primitive radio? Ok. But, I find it irrelevant. But, my other point was that it was too restrictive for new better standards. You are keeping another dead conversation alive, and I'm not allowed to ignore things and let them die?

> You keep missing the point that it has very little relevance to the result of the GA144 being ineffective in any of the feature sizes discussed. At 180 nm only 144 CPUs are on the die. At 640 nm you would get 11 CPUs on the same size die. They would run slower and ultimately be much less useful.
...

> The i486 used "over a million transistors". The F18A has over 17,000 with 2.5 million on the GA144.

Ahh, that's a point. I thought it was 1.25 million transistors, it must be another chip I mistakenly was thinking of (you could try admitting mistakes too). However, the design with reduced cores is still useful. What were we comparing it to? As an embedded processor it could be useful with little or no modification. Having at least one core with full memory access would be most useful.

It's potential for lower speed, is not relevant, you know that everything was lower speed those days. You know that for the process, the misc construction should get much better speed and energy consumption, because of its design. It's just that it's design needs some changes for different applications. The changes are minor.

Anyway, I'm feeling like passing out a bit, so I'd better stop. You may not realise this but, most words I type gets a typo sometimes, and the application corrects somewhat but some how gets the context wrong eventually. I try to switch off most of the predictive stuff, because it's predictions are often not good.

You like getting in the 'last word', but it's about getting in the last right word.

>
> ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSISTOR SIZE IN THE 80'S WAS YOUR POINT, NOT MINE.

It was your point, re-read. I was referring to the type of, less modern, style of architectural programming model.

Your opinion that things have to wrong in the rest here, is irrelevant.

> > > > Didn't the mup get 80-100mips in 1990, so we could reasonably expect lower energy for a unit of speed.
...

> I like the way you trim posts here. Very constructive. I'm sorry you can't just discuss a topic without getting so wrapped up emotionally.

Unfortunately, you don't realise you are being emotional. But, then again, blaming people for defending against bad attacks and getting annoyed, is a technique used by those in the wrong. As is circling to find a new way to re-attack a passer-by, everytime one is wrong.

Wayne morellini <waynemorellini@gmail.com> writes:
> However, the design with reduced cores is still useful. What were we
> comparing it to?

Other parts that are readily available.

> As an embedded processor it could be useful with little or no
> modification.

I dunno, a bunch of us who were here when the GA144 was announced
thought it was cool and put some effort into finding applications for
it. We kept coming up short.

> Having at least one core with full memory access would be most useful.

That would make the enabled core more like a conventional MCU and
conventional MCUs are useful, sure. But if that's what you want, why
not use one directly?

On Monday, December 20, 2021 at 3:48:31 AM UTC+10, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Wayne morellini <waynemo...@gmail.com> writes:
> > However, the design with reduced cores is still useful. What were we
> > comparing it to?
> Other parts that are readily available.

Hi Paul, this thread is too long. It was what type of thing were we comparing it to, type of question. Compared to embedded of the day, I think it would be useful for certain things. Compared to a PC processor, I think it would need extra things, like the direct addressable memory bus.

> > As an embedded processor it could be useful with little or no
> > modification.
> I dunno, a bunch of us who were here when the GA144 was announced
> thought it was cool and put some effort into finding applications for
> it. We kept coming up short.

I don't blame you. If we are talking about the 1980's, then there was a lot more opportunity before integration took over. Back then stream processing of data, was a lot more primitive than now, and routing logic required chips and custom chips on the board. Sort of stuff this was built for. It's just not a great solution for now. 15 years could have been saved. If safe advice was listened to back in the mid 2000's. This is more a Pico (Flow and alteration) Control Unit (PCU) than a MCU.

> > Having at least one core with full memory access would be most useful.
> That would make the enabled core more like a conventional MCU and
> conventional MCUs are useful, sure. But if that's what you want, why
> not use one directly?for today.

That's the point, it can be useful, but they should move on to do something better, and an advanced model. What they should have done, is something like I said, and something like that for what they should do, plus a performance part. What you get, would be something cheap small, much lower energy able to do bigger and smaller tasks, at unheard of performance density per unity of energy, and more forth like, with hardly any hardly any extra hard development. That is what I would call a win around here. Chick should have never abandoned the path he took with the original shboom, and done two levels of chips, and flow chips (that's what I'm calling the GA now). All of them could incorporate flow cores for IO, and data processing, and the high end chip use the mid range (MCU) chips extra features, even using them as array processing. This would be three cores, two of which are shared on the cores above them, and a number of shared features. That is also lean.. So, it could even be useful today, but what about tomorrow? I known it was disappointing, but I could see the writing as soon as I established what the architecture was back then. You guys were wasting your time. The emulation of some old chip, or running JS, was about as high as the design was going to get. Allow it to run directly off an external memory module, it it would have been a different study. What ever I said before about what they should do, is probably right, otherwise it's just a footnote to discuss it.

What I think, is maybe they will implement their 32 bit chip. The 18 bit one, even with direc memory, wouldn't bring as much functionality as the 32 bit. Of course I am being gentle in my words here, I prefer not to stamp around in the mud about this. They are one of the only genuine things going in the hardware sector here. I'm glad Stephen is involved in some sort of, presumably, performance chip. Will that be of similar low energy as advanced 32 but design by Chuck, maybe not. So, great, we might yet see two alternatives. Maybe GA will thrive, but no need for people try to nock them over. I mean the silicon school thing, is a great idea too. So, there is still good stuff there.

It's been over a year. How are things doing?

On 5 Jul 2022 at 16:38:42 CEST, "Wayne morellini" <waynemorellini@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It's been over a year. How are things doing?

Fine, thanks.

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

On Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:22:25 UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2022 at 16:38:42 CEST, "Wayne morellini" <waynemo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > It's been over a year. How are things doing?
> Fine, thanks.
>
> Stephen
> --
> Stephen Pelc, ste...@vfxforth.com
> MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
> 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
> tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, +44 (0)78 0390 3612, +34 649 662 974
> http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

Nice to hear that things are doing fine.

I assume the question was,
if there are any news regarding the 6GHz processor

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:37:11 AM UTC+10, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:22:25 UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > On 5 Jul 2022 at 16:38:42 CEST, "Wayne morellini" <waynemo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > It's been over a year. How are things doing?
> > Fine, thanks.
> >
> > Stephen
> > --
> > Stephen Pelc, ste...@vfxforth.com
> > MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
> > 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
> > tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, +44 (0)78 0390 3612, +34 649 662 974
> > http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
> Nice to hear that things are doing fine.
>
> I assume the question was,
> if there are any news regarding the 6GHz processor

I think that's meant to be fine. But will I be alive by the time this comes out, chips can take so long? :)

If it took me more than a month of work to draft the core of a misc Pico processor, with the right stable tools, I would be disappointed. This might be a thousand times more complex, requiring a lot more effort by a team of people.

Who was that guy that was designing multiple chip Forth processor in England while Chick was designing the original Novix? Was that you Stephen?

On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:37:11 AM UTC+10, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:22:25 UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > On 5 Jul 2022 at 16:38:42 CEST, "Wayne morellini" <waynemo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > It's been over a year. How are things doing?
> > Fine, thanks.
> >
> > Stephen
> > --
> > Stephen Pelc, ste...@vfxforth.com
> > MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
> > 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
> > tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, +44 (0)78 0390 3612, +34 649 662 974
> > http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
> Nice to hear that things are doing fine.
>
> I assume the question was,
> if there are any news regarding the 6GHz processor

I want to design a 60ghz forth processor. I've been trying to figure out the principles of the mechanics of it. Trying to figure out a full speed memory system. But even with a doctorate in these things, it's a load of it's about what principles will even work. Confidence about lower speeds are much higher, but the principle is meant to be overclocked insane amounts. But even so. The transactional cost might be so low, you could perform many low energy circuits in software. The lowest energy circuits, obviously not.

Anyway, there is some YouTube video about people inventing matter from protons. Well, somebody has done that noe, it was another things I was looking at an application for.

On Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:22:25 UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2022 at 16:38:42 CEST, "Wayne morellini" <waynemo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > It's been over a year. How are things doing?
> Fine, thanks.
>
> Stephen
> --
> Stephen Pelc, ste...@vfxforth.com
> MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
> 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
> tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, +44 (0)78 0390 3612, +34 649 662 974
> http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

I just wonder if there is any news regarding this project
or if people should rather not ask anyway?

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-4, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:22:25 UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > On 5 Jul 2022 at 16:38:42 CEST, "Wayne morellini" <waynemo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > It's been over a year. How are things doing?
> > Fine, thanks.
> >
> > Stephen
> > --
> > Stephen Pelc, ste...@vfxforth.com
> > MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
> > 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
> > tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, +44 (0)78 0390 3612, +34 649 662 974
> > http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
> I just wonder if there is any news regarding this project
> or if people should rather not ask anyway?

LOL By "people", you mean *other* people? Why is asking a question about a technical project inappropriate?

--

Rick C.

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

On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 18:44:00 UTC+1, Lorem Ipsum wrote:
> On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 1:16:53 PM UTC-4, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 5 July 2022 at 16:22:25 UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> > > On 5 Jul 2022 at 16:38:42 CEST, "Wayne morellini" <waynemo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > It's been over a year. How are things doing?
> > > Fine, thanks.
> > >
> > > Stephen
> > > --
> > > Stephen Pelc, ste...@vfxforth.com
> > > MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
> > > 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
> > > tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, +44 (0)78 0390 3612, +34 649 662 974
> > > http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads
> > I just wonder if there is any news regarding this project
> > or if people should rather not ask anyway?
> LOL By "people", you mean *other* people? Why is asking a question about a technical project inappropriate?
>
> --
>
> Rick C.
>
> --++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
> --++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

YOUR BULLSHIT DAY OR YOU ARE JUST DRUNK?
Or are you impersonating Stephen Pelc who is most probably the only one who could answer this?

On 30 Apr 2023 at 19:16:51 CEST, "Jurgen Pitaske" <jpitaske@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I just wonder if there is any news regarding this project
> or if people should rather not ask anyway?

When
a) I have nore news for you, an
b) I am allowed to tell you
I will release the news.

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

On Sunday, 30 April 2023 at 22:12:43 UTC+1, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2023 at 19:16:51 CEST, "Jurgen Pitaske" <jpit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I just wonder if there is any news regarding this project
> > or if people should rather not ask anyway?
> When
> a) I have nore news for you, an
> b) I am allowed to tell you
> I will release the news.
> Stephen
> --
> Stephen Pelc, ste...@vfxforth.com
> MicroProcessor Engineering, Ltd. - More Real, Less Time
> 133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
> tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, +44 (0)78 0390 3612,
> +34 649 662 974
> http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

Great, Thank You