Subject:
|
Re: Multitasker and MARKER word
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Nov 1999 20:24:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1489 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi Ralph,
In lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth, Ralph Hempel writes:
> On the XMODEM side, I think that even a ZMODEM program will "fall back"
> to XMODEM. Is this true? I'd really like to use CRT for evrything under Win9x
> because it even has a "keepalive" string I can send to the RCX. I'll
> have to play a bit.
There is present automatic detection in XMODEM protocol group (they are three
XMODEM, XMODEM/CRC and XMODEM-1k). But difference comparing to YMODEM and
ZMODEM is bigger. Simply because XMODEM transfers only a raw data, but YMODEM
and ZMODEM uses additional information, like file names, directory layout,
etc. Although YMODEM, for instance, uses XMODEM as a transport layer, but it
sends a name of transferred file in the first block, that meaningless for
simple XMODEM...
But as I know all standard terminals supports at least ASCII transfer, XMODEM,
YMODEM and ZMODEM.
Is CRT an exception here?
> Finally, what do you vote for in terms of a minimal system? I was thinking of
> tearing almost everything optional out of the kernel and only using about 30
> core words, since that's all most folks ever use in an application.
Well, let me tell you my story. When I first came to Forth, I was missed in
all that "extensions" and variations. I've decided to make my own "mean and
lean" Forth... Finally I did it. And have realised that I can't throw away
anything from the present that time "standard" system - it was just everything
I'm needed. So what I actually got, is only "understanding through rewriting"
;)
So, my point here that hForth kernel (ANSI standard) proposes almost
everything you need in considerable small space.
I do believe, whenever you will try to do a good program you will need all
that words what seems "useless" from the first sight.
And now the SAVE-SYSTEM word gives us possibility to imitate "big" forth - you
can keep kernel small and "upgrade" your system when you really need it.
We even can use all that optional package from the original hForth,
demonstrating high portability of the Forth. Of course, we will need to
"rollback" current pbForth kernel. But as I can see it's really easy.
What do you think? Can we try to make the pbForth completely portable, using
the original packages to create alternative versions (similar to save.exe,
save1.exe)?
Huh...
> I think pbForth is on the cusp of respectability now!
I think it definitely deserves it!
Keep it going!
Sergey
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | RE: Multitasker and MARKER word
|
| (...) WOW! This is great Sergey! I haven't had a close look, but are you actually taking ALL of the tasks out of the list, or just the ones defined AFTER the point in the dictionary that is being restored by MARKER ? (...) Thanks for the kind words. (...) (25 years ago, 14-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
