Quote:
(another pedantic note: an assembler is not a compiler)
I took his word "compiler" to mean he wanted a higher-level language, but maybe I misunderstood.
Quote:
Since ROM space can be at a premium, the BIOS is generally written in tightly-coded assembly language
For tiny jobs, assembly will always take the least memory. A Forth kernel will take a few KB at a minimum, but after passing some threshold of required code amount, Forth will make much more efficient use of memory.
Quote:
and a loader that allows you to transfer machine code from your development machine to your 65xx SBC. In the case of my POC unit, I use the Motorola S-record format, since my assembler [...] can generate S-record output.
I wrote Forth words to receive pre-assembled code from the host computer in Intel Hex, but I haven't used it since I added my assembler to my Forth. I first got familiar with Intel Hex in the 1980's, so that's what I used, although Motorola S-record is just as valid. For PIC development, I so use Microchip's MPASM assembler on the DOS PC and send the Intel Hex output to the workbench computer over RS-232 for my PIC programmer which is controlled by the workbench computer, in Forth.
Quote:
The exact means by which you would link up your hardware with the development box to effect code transfers is up to you. I prefer EIA-232 for such purposes.
I like it too. BTW, if you really want to be up to date, the new name for it is "TIA-232-F" but we still call it RS-232.
Quote:
Garth is the reigning Forth expert around here, as well as an enthusiastic supporter.
Others who come to mind who are extremely strong in it are Bruce and Samuel, possibly Dr Jefyll, (and I'm sure I'm forgetting someone important) although there's not a complete overlap in our abilities.
Quote:
Forth is a fairly easy way to get something going. It isn't for everyone (such as me—RPN and my feeble brain don't get along)
It is an entirely different approach to programming, and not just because of the RPN. My own personal programming started in 1981 with a TI-58c calculator which of course was algebraic. I initially wrote programs for it that did thousands of loop iterations to calculate things in RF design. Later I wanted it to control equipment and take data on the workbench which it was not made to do, so I got an HP-41cx which as you probably know is RPN, not algebraic. In the meantime, I had collected a couple of other algebraic languages too, with their piles of parentheses and sytax requirements. For awhile I could have gone either way--algebraic or RPN--but gradually RPN proved to be much better for all the I/O I was doing. When I met Forth later, the HP-41's RPN had me halfway there already. I was very pleased to get rid of the piles of parentheses and most of the syntax requirements, and also get RPN's more-efficient, implicit parameter-passing and so on. A couple of years ago I was explaining to another engineer I work with that algebraic tells you what you get, whereas RPN tells how you get there. From there, he looked into it further, and became a huge RPN enthusiast.
Quote:
Rumor has it that when he was a baby and started talking the first words out of his mouth were "Go Forth!"
Ahem-- that would be, "Forth Go"
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
-- except that I'm older than Forth.