Let's put the language wars aside. Just for a minute. Chip's opening post here was about Prop II hardware interfaces for connectivity solutions. No language helps with that.
Question is did we actually come up with any neat suggestions there? I'm with Bill. I think, in not wanting the basic Prop II "demo" or "dev" module being any bigger or more expensive than absolutely necessary. To that end I'd like a version with no SDRAM as well.
Making Prop2 Accessible to the world... It's certainly not going to be Forth that sells it to the world. It will sell it to a small handful of Forth enthusiasts. Sorry, but it's true.
.
Nope not true at all. There is a lot more than a "handful" of Forth Programmers out there. You are correct though, it is not Forth that will sell it to the world, in fact it is not any language, but the unique architecture that will ..
It's great that there are enthusiasts for other languages that are making them for the Prop and Prop2, it will serve the other enthusiast and hobby folks well. It's a positive thing for the community here, but lets be realistic, the hobby market is a tiny fraction of the sales Parallax needs for the Prop/Prop2.
Forth is not just used for the "Hobby folk" as you put it, Forth is used in much more serious applications. In fact I have some of my Forth code operating in space satellites where code has to be bug free ..
For the Prop, Forth WILL be chosen when you just can't fit C code in, and SPIN is just too slow ... AND you want interactive development ... AND you want fast code development .. AND you want more chance of BUG free code .. AND it's .... and I am on my hobby horse ... time to dismount
Wow, that was a short truce in the language wars:)
Forth WILL be chosen when you just can't fit C code in...
That sounds like a challenge. What is the smallest code + runtime do we need to to a simple task like toggling a LED (Under software control) in each language?
...SPIN is just too slow...
Yeah, OK.
...you want interactive development...
The Prop tool and SimpleIDE are quite interactive enough.
...you want fast code development...
Yeah, maybe. The edit/compile/test turn around with Spin/C is quite fast enough.
...you want more chance of BUG free code...
No. The issue of "bug freeness" is I believe mostly orthogonal to the language. I don't see how Forth helps with verification of correctness more than say assembler.
I have never seen Forth used where "must be bug free" was a requirement. Not in avionics, miltary, machine control, secure systems. In fact at least in the later Forth would not even have been allowed for various reasons.
Your normal thread topic will be resumed on the outbreak of peace in the current language skirmish....
Yup, just went back and reviewed the instant replay on post#1...not about languages. It's all about interfacing,Bluetooth, wifi. Etc, not a word about programming
Need a development board or two that can support modules but isn't cost prohibitive.
Comments
Question is did we actually come up with any neat suggestions there? I'm with Bill. I think, in not wanting the basic Prop II "demo" or "dev" module being any bigger or more expensive than absolutely necessary. To that end I'd like a version with no SDRAM as well.
Nope not true at all. There is a lot more than a "handful" of Forth Programmers out there. You are correct though, it is not Forth that will sell it to the world, in fact it is not any language, but the unique architecture that will ..
Forth is not just used for the "Hobby folk" as you put it, Forth is used in much more serious applications. In fact I have some of my Forth code operating in space satellites where code has to be bug free ..
For the Prop, Forth WILL be chosen when you just can't fit C code in, and SPIN is just too slow ... AND you want interactive development ... AND you want fast code development .. AND you want more chance of BUG free code ..
Wow, that was a short truce in the language wars:) That sounds like a challenge. What is the smallest code + runtime do we need to to a simple task like toggling a LED (Under software control) in each language? Yeah, OK.
The Prop tool and SimpleIDE are quite interactive enough. Yeah, maybe. The edit/compile/test turn around with Spin/C is quite fast enough. No. The issue of "bug freeness" is I believe mostly orthogonal to the language. I don't see how Forth helps with verification of correctness more than say assembler.
I have never seen Forth used where "must be bug free" was a requirement. Not in avionics, miltary, machine control, secure systems. In fact at least in the later Forth would not even have been allowed for various reasons.
Your normal thread topic will be resumed on the outbreak of peace in the current language skirmish....
Need a development board or two that can support modules but isn't cost prohibitive.
As for languages? All of them, of course!!
Hear, hear!