The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Tony Williams
Subject: Re: Basic Stamp vs Pic processors
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 16:51:15 +0100
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <3DA184E7.B1F429F3@webaccess.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:54:34 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Pluto/1.14i (RISC-OS/3.60)
In article <3DA184E7.B1F429F3@webaccess.net>,
Chuck Simmons wrote:
>...... A big surprise to me when I wrote Forth for RCA 1802
> was that of all the 8 bit micros I have ever used, it was
> the best Forth machine by miles.
Wasn't it just.... probably no accident that Forth Inc
also used it for one of their earliest target-compilers.
> In writing a Forth for TMS320C20, I have to class it as one
> of the worst because it is a horror at byte and bit manipulation
> and access to program memory is awkward...
The ARM has been my favorite, for years. Writing for
a machine controller (an ATE) based on a desktop computer.
No probs with bit, byte, or 32-bit manipulations.
My simple embedded apps are satisfied by the PIC, but if
I had to do a processor-intensive embedded app it would be
based on one of the ARM-variants, probably with the Forth
target-compiler from Microprocessor Engineering.... highly
optimised code; from the few examples I have seen the
results are as near to assembler as you can get without
actually having to write assembler.
> I consider AVR a possible for Forth execution. It cannot
> have a full functioning Forth because program memory cannot
> be written from a program.
The StrongARM 110 is supposed to be Harvard Architecture,
yet there is successful fully functioning Forth available
> Generally, von Neumann machines with highly "orthogonal" instruction
> sets are good for Forth. For example, the RCA 1802 had a highly
> "orthogonal" instruction set and was a piece of cake for Forth.
6809 was supposed to be ok, and the Super-8 mentioned
> I forgot to mention. The first Forth I ever saw was one
> written by Chuck Moore running on a Data General Nova 820.
Was that the one with a 2uS NEXT, in 1970? Ten years
later I was fiddling about with the 6502 (AIM-65 for any
BoFs with long memories), which still was only capable
then of a 35uS NEXT.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup