On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 09:38:45 -0800, Devyn wrote:

> -------snip-----------
> The reaon i use C is for simplicity. Consider this - How would you
> implement a Look Up table, say for a stepper motor using ALP ?

	I wouldn't use ALP.  If you want the Forth code for doing so I'll gladly
supply a snippit.

> All this can be implemented in C with a simple switch case statement.
> And an LUT is only an example. I cant tell you how simple things are
> with C. Also, C is more understood than ALP. So, if i feel i have made
> a logical error, i can post my query in an s/w group, refer to
> registers as variables and have the problem solved.

	Two issues, case statements in general have a significant overhead.  This
is especially true of little 8-bit microcontrollers.  We avoid case
statements in a number of ways determined by the application.  The most
common is by constructing a table in memory then using it's origin plus an
offset which is naught but an add instruction and exceedingly swift.

	Second is the historical problem of debugging C.  Neither emulators nor
simulators give you the single most important capability of Basic or
Forth, interpretative execution on the actual production hardware.  No
amount of emulation or simulation can possible predict circuit behavior,
not even SPICE circuit simulation can do so in all cases let alone a
compiler.

	By having a base of working, proven code you build incrementally with
each module fully proven and debugged before launching into the next. 
Compare this with C, or any other compiled language, and ask yourself,
"How do I test this when it doesn't work?"  That is putting entirely too
much power and trust into the compiler vendors besides making life
unnecessarily difficult.

	The C programmers best friend is a disassembler.  Doesn't that seem like
a cognitive disconnect?
 
-- Regards, Albert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AM Research, Inc.    			  The Embedded Systems Experts
http://www.amresearch.com          			  916.780.7623
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 10:51:41 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.12.31.01.50.27.998575@albert.amresearch.com>,
> Albert Lee Mitchell <albmit@albert.amresearch.com> writes
>>> So? That is no reason to use it. There are plenty of C tools and support
>>> available from the free to the very expensive.  The point is that there
>>> is a LOT of support for C for all levels. There is no need to tie one
>>> self down to a less appropreate language just because some ametures use
>>> it.. 
>>
>>       Yes, it is a reason unless you are pursuing your own agenda.  The
>>gentleman originating this tread asked specifically for "amateur" help.  C
>>is not for amateurs 
> 
> That is not true.... C is taught to 16 year olds at school.  C can be
> used by anyone.  In fact one "amateur" I know is on the ISO C working
> group.
> 
>>and arguably not for low-level embedded applications. 
>>At least not with optimization turned on.
> 
> Then you are disagreeing with a LOT of professionals who use it for all
> sorts of work including safety critical and medical from 8051's and Pics
> upwards. 
> 
> 
>>>>       On most micros however there is no correlation between the number of 
>>>>developers using Forth 
>>>>and the number of embedded control projects in use.
>>> 
>>> This is true. The amount of forth in use probably dwindles even more if
>>> you look ate the number of projects or indeed the number of installed
>>> devices.
>>
>>       Dogma again.  Forth is a well-hidden trade secret by most of my clients. 
> 
> Not that you have a hidden agenda for going against the majority of
> professionals and ammeters who use C.
> 
> I don't  suppose you are commercially involved with Forth and Basic
> tools?
> 
>>There is no way, again, that you can supply any meaningful statistics so
>>please discriminate between your opinion and reality.
> 
> I can dig them out... (again)  I think it was 80% using C and Forth and
> Basic around 10% about 5 years ago. 
> 
> Basic usage has dropped (as have the number of supported tools) Forth?
> You would know about that better than I as it is YOUR agenda but I would
> bet it is not gaining in market share.
> 
> 
>>> I have nothing against forth but an ammeter will get fat more help and
>>> support (and tools) on a far wider variety of micros and application
>>> types that he could from forth.
>>
>>       Huh?  No tool is better than it's user.
> This is true.
> 
>>  Again, the number of products
>>has no correlation to it's quality. 
> 
> Correct but in a large number of products there will be good ones and
> cheap ones and good cheap ones and probably several that are just right
> for you with a large users base you can cal on for help.
> 
> Where there is a choice of 2 or 3 with a small(er) user base the choices
> are far more limited. Also with fewer users the tools tend to get less
> usage and testing. 
> 
>> Hmmm, a pattern is emerging here. 
>>Instead of pushing your agenda why not give cites and evidence and let the
>>reader and original poster decide?
> 
> Please do. It appears you have an agenda of pushing a language you
> support commercially.  Lets throw it open. How many forth tools and
> users are there out there?
> 
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>AM Research, Inc.                        The Embedded Systems Experts
>>http://www.amresearch.com                                916.780.7623
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I don't suppose you represent a company that is pushing forth  and basic
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> 
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England    /\/\/\/\/\
> /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org       www.phaedsys.org \/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

-- 
-- Regards, Albert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AM Research, Inc.    			  The Embedded Systems Experts
http://www.amresearch.com          			  916.780.7623
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 10:51:41 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:

> In article <pan.2003.12.31.01.50.27.998575@albert.amresearch.com>,
> Albert Lee Mitchell <albmit@albert.amresearch.com> writes
>>> So? That is no reason to use it. There are plenty of C tools and support
>>> available from the free to the very expensive.  The point is that there
>>> is a LOT of support for C for all levels. There is no need to tie one
>>> self down to a less appropreate language just because some ametures use
>>> it.. 
>>
>>       Yes, it is a reason unless you are pursuing your own agenda.  The
>>gentleman originating this tread asked specifically for "amateur" help.  C
>>is not for amateurs 
> 
> That is not true.... C is taught to 16 year olds at school.  C can be
> used by anyone.  In fact one "amateur" I know is on the ISO C working
> group.

	16 year olds are taught to drive too but that says nothing about the
quality of their driving.
 
>>and arguably not for low-level embedded applications. 
>>At least not with optimization turned on.
> 
> Then you are disagreeing with a LOT of professionals who use it for all
> sorts of work including safety critical and medical from 8051's and Pics
> upwards. 

	Right, I'm disagreeing with other professionals.  Other professionals
agree with me.  Insted of injecting your opinion provide some information
for the original poster to make an informed decision.


>>>>       On most micros however there is no correlation between the number of 
>>>>developers using Forth 
>>>>and the number of embedded control projects in use.
>>> 
>>> This is true. The amount of forth in use probably dwindles even more if
>>> you look ate the number of projects or indeed the number of installed
>>> devices.
>>
>>       Dogma again.  Forth is a well-hidden trade secret by most of my clients. 
> 
> Not that you have a hidden agenda for going against the majority of
> professionals and ammeters who use C.
> 
> I don't  suppose you are commercially involved with Forth and Basic
> tools?

	Ok, now I understand.  Sorry, I'm not a spelling Nazi but really didn't
understand your useage of 'ammaters' above, I visualized an ampmeter. 
Since people of different languages post here and I'm not that hot in
other languages I never speak against grammar or spelling in the
newsgroups however I really didn't understand 'ammeter'.  I did read your
website which is in English and describes you as a professional with a
list of credentials, mostly in C.
 
>>There is no way, again, that you can supply any meaningful statistics so
>>please discriminate between your opinion and reality.
> 
> I can dig them out... (again)  I think it was 80% using C and Forth and
> Basic around 10% about 5 years ago. 

	Then do so.  Note that the keyword here is 'meaningful'.  We both know
that statistics are only as good as the data and objectivity of the author.

> Basic usage has dropped (as have the number of supported tools) Forth?
> You would know about that better than I as it is YOUR agenda but I would
> bet it is not gaining in market share.

	Think so?  Remember this dialog began with the word "Amateur" in the
header.  Now, pick up a Circuit Cellar or Nuts & Volts and look at the
number of Basic products.  You may wish Basic away, I do too, but life
seldom wraps itself around our desires and goes its own way.  Much as we
both wish against Basic is here to stay, learn to live with it, I did.
 
>>  Again, the number of products has no correlation to it's quality. 
> 
> Correct but in a large number of products there will be good ones and
> cheap ones and good cheap ones and probably several that are just right
> for you with a large users base you can cal on for help.

	You keep ignoring the orignal authors polite request and shoving your
agenda down his, and our collective, throats.  Instead of giving opinion
please provide some fact to substantiate your continued dogma.
 
> Where there is a choice of 2 or 3 with a small(er) user base the choices
> are far more limited. Also with fewer users the tools tend to get less
> usage and testing. 
> 
>> Hmmm, a pattern is emerging here. 
>>Instead of pushing your agenda why not give cites and evidence and let the
>>reader and original poster decide?
> 
> Please do. It appears you have an agenda of pushing a language you
> support commercially.  

	Commercially?  I don't make a cent off my software, it's all free.  I
do provide both Forth and Basic but the lack of a profit motive gives me a
bit more objectivity here.  Please respond to the topic, not your agenda.

> Lets throw it open. How many forth tools and users are there out there?

	You needn't get defensive, just provide some facts instead of dogma.  If
you wish to open a thread on Forth I'll respond in detail there.  Here we
were discussing the (in)applicability of C for the 8051.  I strongly
disagree that C is appropriate for 8-bit micros while you count beans.


-- Regards, Albert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
AM Research, Inc.    			  The Embedded Systems Experts
http://www.amresearch.com          			  916.780.7623
----------------------------------------------------------------------

cbarn24050@aol.com (CBarn24050) wrote in message news:<20040101203238.15398.00002267@mb-m04.aol.com>...
> Hi, so you switched language because you couldn't understand how to do a table
> look up? You are in big trouble.


 Tsk Tsk...

  I was merely giving an example while presenting my case. I've
implemented much more complicated codes with ALP while working on my
projects. YOU are in big trouble if you cant understand a simple
post...

Devyn

Hi, so you switched language because you couldn't understand how to do a table
look up? You are in big trouble.

Albert Lee Mitchell <albmit@albert.amresearch.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.12.31.01.50.27.998575@albert.amresearch.com>...
> 
> 	Huh?  No tool is better than it's user.  Again, the number of products
> has no correlation to it's quality.  Hmmm, a pattern is emerging here. 
> Instead of pushing your agenda why not give cites and evidence and let the
> reader and original poster decide?
> 


 Well, thank you all for the great responses. Speaking from an
'amateur' (i think i finally got the spelling right..) point of view,
I relish using C. I've been using ALP (assembly..) for quite some time
and i know the architecture inside out.

The reaon i use C is for simplicity. Consider this - How would you
implement a Look Up table, say for a stepper motor using ALP ?

eg. 

LUT    ADDWF PCL,F
       RETLW VAL_1
       RETLW VAL_2
       . 
       .
       .
       RETLW VAL_N
       RETURN

I've used 16F84 ALP

Looks simple? What confused was what if the code started in the
location 2FF? I would have to compensate by incrementing PCLATH which
would completely wreck the LUT logic i've used.

All this can be implemented in C with a simple switch case statement.
And an LUT is only an example. I cant tell you how simple things are
with C. Also, C is more understood than ALP. So, if i feel i have made
a logical error, i can post my query in an s/w group, refer to
registers as variables and have the problem solved.

Small wonder I've been using C for the past year.

Regards,
Devyn

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:51:41 +0000, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>Basic usage has dropped (as have the number of supported tools) Forth?
>You would know about that better than I as it is YOUR agenda but I would
>bet it is not gaining in market share.
...
>It appears you have an agenda of pushing a language you
>support commercially.  Lets throw it open. How many forth tools and
>users are there out there?

My company, MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd. (MPE), is a vendor
of Forth tools. We've been in business since 1981. Other Forth
vendors include Forth Inc, Triangle Digital, and New Micros.
MPE's clients make mobile phones, plan the construction of
airports, make mass spectrometers, access control systems
and telephone PABXs. Like all of the smaller compiler vendors,
we do a great deal of consultancy work. The bulk of our sales
is to professional programmers, but we do have 8051 tools
including hardware at around the GBP 64 (USD 100) price point.

Commercially, C is the equivalent of English among spoken
languages: it may not be the best, but it is the common language.
One day English may give way to another language.

In the programming world, all languages other than C/C++ have
declined in popularity with the exception of Java. Among the
minority languages, Forth is doing surprisingly well. I only
got into Forth because I was looking for a portable Pascal
compiler. Where are Eiffel and Modula 2 now? I really liked
Modula 2.

As I see it, there are three major areas for tool chains:
PCs; PDAs; and deep embedded. Traditionally Forth's strength
has been in deep embedded. These days, Forth compilers produce
optimised native code. The older threaded implementations
are obsolete except where code density is the overriding
objective. Forth can be classified as an interactive and
extensible language.

Where Forth scores is when you take advantage of interactive
development on the target. At the end of 2002, MPE was
involved in a bomb disposal machine project. The real
problems were in the mechanics and drives. Interactive
experiments wth the system gave us numbers about the world
we were controlling. Yes, those experiments could have been
obtained using C, but it would have taken very much longer.

For similar reasons, I find it much easier to explore the
Windows API from Forth than from C.

During the Europay Open Terminal Architecture project, an
OTA payment terminal program written in Forth was rewritten
in C. The target was an 8051. The Forth system occupied
32k bytes total including all O/S and hardware drivers.
The Keil 8051 C compiler exceeded 64k before all files were
linked. The C programmer was an excellent programmer and had
access to the Forth sources.

Our PowerNet TCP/IP stack with multi-threaded Telnet and
web servers (with CGI and ASP) on most CPUs fits into 112kb
including all the hardware drivers.

When you take advantage of Forth's interaction and
extensibility, you have a system that produces compact and
fast code. The proliferation of scripting languages for
desktop PCs shows that there are things that C does not
do well. Forth is one of those languages that is much
better than C in some areas. One size does not fit all.

Stephen

--
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@INVALID.mpeltd.demon.co.uk
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeltd.demon.co.uk - free VFX Forth downloads

In article <pan.2003.12.31.01.50.27.998575@albert.amresearch.com>,
Albert Lee Mitchell <albmit@albert.amresearch.com> writes
>> So? That is no reason to use it. There are plenty of C tools and support
>> available from the free to the very expensive.  The point is that there
>> is a LOT of support for C for all levels. There is no need to tie one
>> self down to a less appropreate language just because some ametures use
>> it.. 
>
>       Yes, it is a reason unless you are pursuing your own agenda.  The
>gentleman originating this tread asked specifically for "amateur" help.  C
>is not for amateurs 

That is not true.... C is taught to 16 year olds at school.  C can be
used by anyone.  In fact one "amateur" I know is on the ISO C working
group.

>and arguably not for low-level embedded applications. 
>At least not with optimization turned on.

Then you are disagreeing with a LOT of professionals who use it for all
sorts of work including safety critical and medical from 8051's and Pics
upwards. 


>>>       On most micros however there is no correlation between the number of 
>>>developers using Forth 
>>>and the number of embedded control projects in use.
>> 
>> This is true. The amount of forth in use probably dwindles even more if
>> you look ate the number of projects or indeed the number of installed
>> devices.
>
>       Dogma again.  Forth is a well-hidden trade secret by most of my clients. 

Not that you have a hidden agenda for going against the majority of
professionals and ammeters who use C.

I don't  suppose you are commercially involved with Forth and Basic
tools?

>There is no way, again, that you can supply any meaningful statistics so
>please discriminate between your opinion and reality.

I can dig them out... (again)  I think it was 80% using C and Forth and
Basic around 10% about 5 years ago. 

Basic usage has dropped (as have the number of supported tools) Forth?
You would know about that better than I as it is YOUR agenda but I would
bet it is not gaining in market share.


>> I have nothing against forth but an ammeter will get fat more help and
>> support (and tools) on a far wider variety of micros and application
>> types that he could from forth.
>
>       Huh?  No tool is better than it's user.
This is true.

>  Again, the number of products
>has no correlation to it's quality. 

Correct but in a large number of products there will be good ones and
cheap ones and good cheap ones and probably several that are just right
for you with a large users base you can cal on for help.

Where there is a choice of 2 or 3 with a small(er) user base the choices
are far more limited. Also with fewer users the tools tend to get less
usage and testing. 

> Hmmm, a pattern is emerging here. 
>Instead of pushing your agenda why not give cites and evidence and let the
>reader and original poster decide?

Please do. It appears you have an agenda of pushing a language you
support commercially.  Lets throw it open. How many forth tools and
users are there out there?

>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>AM Research, Inc.                        The Embedded Systems Experts
>http://www.amresearch.com                                916.780.7623
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't suppose you represent a company that is pushing forth  and basic


?


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England    /\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org       www.phaedsys.org \/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/