Re: SEAforth Instruction Set
- From: jmdrake_98@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 7 Jul 2006 08:10:10 -0700
roger.levy@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
This is a message from a lone wandering Forth programmer who just
stumbled upon this thread while looking for the SeaForth instruction
set.
I am utterly disgusted by the behavior of all of you towards Mr. Jeff
Fox, your total irreverance towards all that he and Intellasys is
doing, and your useless speculations. This isn't productive. I feel
sorry for Jeff for having to defend himself so violently but I can
relate to the kind of onslaught that common programmers can pose to
real Forth programmers.
You know, while I'm sure your intentions are honorable, you're doing
the exact same thing you accuse others of, namely "useless
speculation. Case in point:
Anyway it doesn't matter. I've gotten the picture (correct me if I'm
wrong, Jeff) from reading the first 1/2 of the thread that Jeff is
talking around the assumption that we all should have realized by now
that documentation CAN'T be given right now because the system is not
finished. In the traditional form, the Forth/hardware combination is
constantly evolving til the very end. You never know what kind of
kinks come up that can be worked out or lead to new innovations.
If the system is NOT finished then IntellaSys should have been more
coy about the info they DID release. And I don't know why they gave
themselves the "June 30th" date (which has passed) for releasing a
tools they say they are already using for an unfinished system.
Besides, what do you mean by "finished"? As Jeff has pointed out
there are various versions of the chip. One version has been used
to build a working wireless home theatre system (unless I'm
reading that documentation wrong). So it's "finished". But that
doesn't mean other versions can't/won't be released.
The most interesting part about the SeaForth chip, to me, is not its
silly old instruction set, all of that is relatively superficial, and i
feel, has a very specific purpose of illustrating what a machine forth
32-instruction set would look like for a parallel processor.
Huh? You make it sound like this is just some "theoretical"
instruction set. If that was all that was going on, the old c18
documentation served that purpose.
See:
http://dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/forth/euro/ef01/moore01a.pdf
The SEAForth instruction set is supposed to represent what has
been recently going on. I don't know how you can call that
"superficial".
I saw it,
and I was a little intrigued, but I moved on. If you're working on
anything worthwhile, you wouldn't CARE what p!+ is really for, because
you are NOT IN THAT WORLD YET.
Obvious guy says "maybe you're considering using the SEAForth
chip when it comes out?" I don't know what you call "worthwhile"
but I think it's very worthwhile for someone to look at the instruction
set of a chip that's supposed to be released soon in anticipation of
possibly using it. As Jeff said himself THEY WERE EXPECTING
COMMENTS!
Personally, I sought the instruction
set out because I just recently considered caching the top of my return
stack in a register and I thought "what kinds of new instructions could
take advantage of this?" and maybe you can put together the rest. The
point was, what is already being done in a context similar to mine,
that I can leverage? And I didn't find anything so I will probably
just have to find out through my work if the register will be used in
some new instructions.
Ah. So "worthwhile" for you is designing your own chip. That's fine.
But some people are interesting in using the SEAForth chips when
they come out. I see nothing wrong with that. I also see nothing
wrong with asking questions that are OBVIOUSLY prompted by
information IntellaSys has released. And note, this thread had
all but died until your last message. Jeff told everyone "Wait a
week or so." So everybody has basically been waiting.
I think that speculation is fun, a great social activity. Great for
coming up with your own ideas - in your own sphere. There is a
horrible illusion we have today that the world has vaguely been united
by the internet. And over the course of a couple decades - neat! But
why do you want to speculate about something that is not up to you to
ever decide?
What does that have to do with anything?
It only colors your opinion once you see the final thing,
giving you false reference for judgements.
And when the "final thing" comes out, people aren't intelligent enough
to read the lastest documentation? Don't insult everyone's
intelligence.
SeaForth is not so
important that everyone absolutely has to know what the instruction
set is before it is even available. What are you goign to do, write
PROGRAMS for it before you even have one??
Again, IntellaSys RELEASED the instruction set. So why are you
jumping on everyone for asking questions about something that
has been RELEASED? When they released it they knew people
would ask questions and make comments. The obviously WANTED
people to do SOME (though not all) of what's been happening in
this thread. And then the thread died. I fail to see the point of
you bringing it back now just to tell people to stop doing what
they had already stopped doing.
Regards,
John M. Drake
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SEAforth Instruction Set
- From: roger.levy@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: SEAforth Instruction Set
- References:
- Re: SEAforth Instruction Set
- From: roger.levy@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: SEAforth Instruction Set
- Prev by Date: Re: What other language besides forth and lisp?
- Next by Date: Re: 1 instruction / nanosecond plus a nanosecond for on-chip cache access,
- Previous by thread: Re: SEAforth Instruction Set
- Next by thread: Re: SEAforth Instruction Set
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
