 | | Re: idea for firmware development
|
|
(...) Well, I think it would be an interesting exercise in programming... The only advantage I can see right now is if the pbForth implementation would be smaller, and thus one would have more space for the applications... but there may be others (...) (25 years ago, 18-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: idea for firmware development
|
|
(...) Well, it’s difficult to guess the size right now. But I'm almost sure that size of the extension itself (without kernel code) will be smaller. ;) Depending on application, size of Forth code comparable with size of assembler code. The whole (...) (25 years ago, 18-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: idea for firmware development
|
|
(...) :-) I just finished an answer to Ralph on another thread, and it was the same idea that crossed my mind - if the bytecode could be extended, while remaining backward compatible, so that it allows for more variables and maybe a stack, then it (...) (25 years ago, 19-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: idea for firmware development
|
|
Again... Just like in "real" world, we have a legacy system problem here... ;) Sergey (...) be (...) (25 years ago, 19-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| |
| | Re: idea for firmware development
|
|
(...) Yeah, don't you just LOVE this kind of problems? :-) And to top it all, one works like a dog and when everything is ready, RCX 2.0 comes and it blows away at least 75% of the work! /Vlad (25 years ago, 19-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
