JUERGEN <
epld...@aol.com> writes:
> On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 10:56:24 AM UTC+1, Matthias Koch wrote:
>> I am a physicist and very curious on how it works internally. I
>> simply would not recommend VFX for the hobbyist or the one who
>> wishes to play with Forth internals. The in-target Lite compilers
>> have their limits, and a NDA is not the right choice for FOSS freaks.
> Another very negative Forth post. Wanting all the internals for free -
> Want the IP without paying for it. Is this how physicists work?
I didn't see it as a negative post, and I do note that Matthias is
giving away Mecrisp. I don't think he said anything bad about VFX or
asked anything from its vendor. He suggested that a FOSS implementation
(like his) has advantages for certain types of users. And he put the
work into writing such an implementation, which deserves respect.
> Along your lines I could not recommend Mecrisp, as it is a freebe and
> you cannot spend the time to support it professionally, as you are not
> paid for it
I would hope that Stephen has better things to do than offer unpaid
professional support to those 1024 Scouts who will be using the gratis
Lite product. I'd also note that historically, the dominant Forth
implementation among hobbyists was probably FIGForth, which was free.
The commercial implementations were better but they weren't easily
affordable for non-professionals. Forth would probably be dead today
rather than merely obscure, if FIGForth hadn't popularized it as it did.
If you used FIGForth yourself, you probably got something out of it.
Finally if I'm reading Stephen's posts correctly, the Lite resident
interpreter is actually distributed as source, which is great if it's
true, especially if it can be compiled with the Lite cross-compiler.
That means users can study and modify the interpreter, which is
important.
> 1024 scouts will somehow solder a MicroBox and play with VFX LITE
> programmed onto the MSP430 chips - not with one of the free versions
> where they, like the physicist, might want to look at all the internal
> bits - and they would not be interested, except if they reach a higher
> level in Forth. Or even better if they like the Language.
Time will tell, but you may be underestimating how interested these
Scouts are likely to be in seeing the internal bits.
> Professional products need the money paid to survive. Otherwise
> Mecrisp might be the most professional level? As you probably know
> better than I do, there is not much professional product left in the
> Forth world. If you are a good physicist and want to understand it
> all - write your own compiler as you did - is it for professional
> work, hobbyists or just to play around with ? Define the target
> audience and then the product according to it.
I think Rickman is trying to use Mecrisp professionally. I'd certainly
count the 1024 scouts as mostly hobbyist-level rather than
professionals. I myself have tried out a few different Linux desktop
Forths, and so far Gforth (which is free) is the one that works best for
me so far. VFX and Swift have huge advantages for cross-development and
I'd definitely consider them if I got involved in an embedded Forth
project, but haven't felt the need so far.
I'll note that I got paid for a while to work on GCC, which is a free
compiler (non-Forth) used by many professionals. As Stephen says, it's
just a different business model.