Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!well!jax
From: jax@well.UUCP (Jack J. Woehr)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: embedded systems & Forth
Summary: I'm glad you asked that question ...
Keywords: ROM, embedded, systems, realtime, Vesta, ANSI
Message-ID: <15294@well.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jan 90 04:37:06 GMT
References: <7436@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: jax@well.UUCP (Jack J. Woehr)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 81

In article <7436@pt.cs.cmu.edu> koopman@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Philip Koopman) writes:
>
> 
>Recently I have discerned a dichotomy in various discussions
>about Forth and Forth-based environment.  On the one hand,
>it appears that the only place where Forth is (or may be,
>depending on who you ask) widely used is in embedded control
>systems.

	It's definitely a big portion of the Forth dollar.
Of course, some authorities estimate that 90% of the American
computer dollar goes to embedded systems.

	,,, <stuff deleted> ,,,

> 
>On the other hand, much of the discussions and proposals
>on how to change, improve, and modify Forth is based
>around large system considerations.

	Disturbing thought, eh? I've decided to start attending
ANSI meetings with just that thought in mind.

> 
>Where will this lead?  I could see that it might lead to a
>situation where embedded control applications diverge from
>the "mainstream" of the Forth community in order to keep
>their systems lean, while the others go on to evolve
>fat systems for Unix use.  And, don't be so fast to give
>the argument about being able to simply subset the Unix
>Forth for use in embedded systems.  The assumptions and
>structure of a fat Forth system, unless special care is taken,
>run a little bit too deep in the implementation to be able
>to just strip out major features without a lot of work as well
>as a qualitative shift to the way the language looks and
>feels.  

	Well, that may be too general. In a sense we are already
there, Phil. The thought that the average SBC programmer is going
to metacompile a target application from FPC Forth, for instance,
is pretty humourous. But increasingly there are systems available
that are "fat" on your PC but are able to target compile fairly
simply for a ROM project. So you can have your cake and eat it,
it seems.

>Of course, one is then left to ask whether the real
>mainstream would then be the embedded systems folks or
>the Unix system folks.
> 

	Hey, wherever ya stand is the center of the universe, right?
In what language community is this as true as with Forth?

	,,, <stuff deleted> ,,,

>we should make a concerted effort
>to make it very usable for embedded control applications.

	That's what we do every day at Vesta Technology, Inc.
Our SBC's based on 8088, 80188, 68000 with onboard 
F83 featuring host-PC diskserving and autostart compiled
overlays do the trick! <<<end of plug>>>

>Right now, only folks who are desperate in embedded control
>applications will turn to Forth to get a job done (as opposed
>to learning it for aesthetics or fun).  If we can make it the
>*language of choice* in some application area, then we will 
>have gained a foothold in the rest of the world.
> 
	You're kidding, right? Among the cognoscenti, Forth *IS*
the language of choice for embedded control. 

	Keep up the Good Work, Sir Phil de L'Harris, and the heathen
will yet see the light!

{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
{} jax@well     ." Sysop, Realtime Control and Forth Board"      FIG      {}
{} jax@chariot  ." (303) 278-0364 3/12/2400 8-n-1 24 hrs."     Chapter    {}
{} JAX on GEnie       ." Tell them JAX sent you!"             Coordinator {}
{} jax@well.sf.ca.us                                                      {}
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}