 | | 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)
| |
