Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
comp.lang.forth
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Nice little Forth article
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Bill Leary  
View profile  
 More options Oct 7 2012, 5:26 pm
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: "Bill Leary" <Bill_Le...@msn.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 17:26:15 -0400
Local: Sun, Oct 7 2012 5:26 pm
Subject: Re: Nice little Forth article
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

"Hugh Aguilar"  wrote in message
> news:1c972ea2-59db-4cbb-8abf-6bb52ed5d589@g7g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

> On Oct 6, 11:42 am, Mark Wills <forthfr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://toddbot.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-forth-still-matters-in-this.html

>> Thanks to JohnnyBritish.

> His point is that Forth is better for small low-power systems than C
> is. This helps when you are doing the project as a hobby and your
> "copious free time" is limited. Forth-vs-C is not an issue with
> commercial projects because they are going to be written in assembly-
> language, and they will use a much smaller processor than Forth or C
> could run on (typically 128 bytes of data memory and 2K of code
> memory). Even though the programming is done in assembly rather than a
> high-level language, the cost of programming will still be only a tiny
> fraction of the total cost of the project. The programming may get
> done by the electrical engineer, in which case the cost of programming
> is $0 because no programmer was hired.

You don't pay the EE for his or her time spent programming?

> This was true in the 1990s and it is still true today.

I wonder.  I've been doing embedded work since the late 70's.  In all that
time, on all those projects, the programming (except for programmable logic)
was done my programmers.  Early on in assembler, later most of it in an
embedded dialect of C or PL/M.  I've known EEs who could program, but I
don't recall one who wouldn't defer to a full time programmer, if that
programmer was hardware knowledgeable.

> Computer programmers are not important people --- their opinion on
> Forth-vs-C doesn't matter to anybody.

Hmmm.

> If the opinion of computer programmers mattered to anybody, processors
> such as the PIC16 and the 8051 would not have been popular --- those
> things aren't easy to program --- it was the electrical engineers'
> opinion that mattered.

I never worked with a PIC16.  I've done a fair amount of work on several
8051 flavors and didn't find them particularly difficult to program.

    - Bill


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google