16 Oct
2005
16 Oct
'05
9:14 a.m.
At 18:08 -0500 10/14/05, cctalk-request at classiccmp.org wrote:
>Suppose you wanted to write an application for a
manufacturing process that
>will, in all probability, run for the next 30 years....
Also depends on how inviolate the code must be, and how verifiable
the system. If you need to re-create the system, FORTH can be
implemented with a lot fewer gates of hardware and a lot fewer lines
of code than JAVA - and would therefore be a lot easier to verify, if
you need to design/build new hardware to run your legacy code on in
25 years.
--
- Mark
210-522-6025, temporary cell 240-375-2995
17 Oct
17 Oct
9:07 a.m.
Mark Tapley wrote:
At 18:08 -0500 10/14/05, cctalk-request at
classiccmp.org wrote:
Also depends on how inviolate the code must be, and how verifiable the
system. If you need to re-create the system, FORTH can be implemented
with a lot fewer gates of hardware and a lot fewer lines of code than
JAVA - and would therefore be a lot easier to verify, if you need to
design/build new hardware to run your legacy code on in 25 years.
Are we tallking real gates as in TTL, or FPGA style design? Forth does
have several advantages
over say fortran since they removed the Sense Switch requirment of
fortran.My worry is that you
may not be able to high-level threshold logic and memory anymore for
industral problems.
Suppose
you wanted to write an application for a manufacturing
process that
>will, in all probability, run for the next 30 years.... 
19 Oct
19 Oct
12:08 p.m.
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Mark Tapley wrote:
At 18:08 -0500 10/14/05, cctalk-request at
classiccmp.org wrote:
Also depends on how inviolate the code must be, and how verifiable the
system. If you need to re-create the system, FORTH can be implemented with a
lot fewer gates of hardware and a lot fewer lines of code than JAVA - and
would therefore be a lot easier to verify, if you need to design/build new
hardware to run your legacy code on in 25 years.
--
- Mark
210-522-6025, temporary cell 240-375-2995
Hi
Forth is also one of the few languages that can readily be created
Suppose
you wanted to write an application for a manufacturing process
that
>will, in all probability, run for the next 30 years.... from scratch on most computer platforms. Most other
languages, you are
tied to some vendor to supply a compiler for you.
Once the core is running, the levels of high level constructs can be
easily replicated on some future machine using the original code. This
does assume that they will still be using basically a Von Neumann type
design or a Harvard like machine, such as the x86 has become.
Dwight
1:06 p.m.
Dwight K. Elvey wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Mark Tapley wrote:
True, assuming you can't write a compiler (or find one from somewhere) -
or do you mean that the language spec isn't available for most languages
without at least shelling out $$$ (I'd be surprised if that were the
case, but stranger things have happened)
At 18:08 -0500 10/14/05, cctalk-request at
classiccmp.org wrote:
Also depends on how inviolate the code must be, and how verifiable the
system. If you need to re-create the system, FORTH can be implemented
with a lot fewer gates of hardware and a lot fewer lines of code than
JAVA - and would therefore be a lot easier to verify, if you need to
design/build new hardware to run your legacy code on in 25 years.
--
- Mark
210-522-6025, temporary cell 240-375-2995
Hi
Forth is also one of the few languages that can readily be created from
scratch on most computer platforms. Most other languages, you are tied
to some vendor to supply a compiler for you. Suppose
you wanted to write an application for a manufacturing
process that
>will, in all probability, run for the next 30 years....
7321
days inactive
7324
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
dwight.elvey＠amd.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
mtapley＠swri.edu