Subject:
|
Forth vs Assembler
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Oct 1999 09:44:46 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
John Barnes <barnes@sensors.comSPAMLESS>
|
Viewed:
|
543 times
|
| |
|
|
Since observing these Lego email broadcasts, I've been wondering what
Forth was. Engineering background, not CS!
Now I know, after reading Ralph Hempel's "RE: Mindstorms/reinforcement
learning".
Very cryptic by the looks! Why not use honest to goodness assembly language
to do this stuff. It's really very easy, especially on Motorola CPUs. And
its as fast as you can go! And using assembler really gives you a good
feeling for what the microprocessor's doing.
JB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | RE: Forth vs Assembler
|
| (...) There are a couple of reasons to choose pbFORTH over raw assembler... 1. Assembler requires an assembler, which means downloading and configuring the GNU tools on eiher Linux or Cygwin for Win9x. Not for the faint of heart. 2. Once you get (...) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
| | | Re: Forth vs Assembler
|
| (...) It's especially easy to program in assembly for whatever CPU architecture you happen to be familiar with. If you've got a background in Motorola parts, that makes them easy for you. I grew up on Z80 and ARM, so it's different for me. BTW, the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
