RE: [SeattleRobotics] Re: Another restart: Platform for robotics
- I know a guy who has made a living at it for the better part of 30 years. He's now
working for the main forth guy who has done a whole ASIC company using it. I forget
the main forth guy's name, but I can find out if you're interested.
I've not really kept up with the other guy. But whenever one of us hears about the
other, 3rd party razzing takes place usually about forth or lack thereof.
> David Wyland said: Monday, January 26, 2009 11:51 AM
> > Bill Ragsdale and his merry crew (of which I was one) decided
> > that the world needed what amounts to an open source Forth.
> Oh heavens. I have such a mixed view of what happened with FIG
> Forth. I think we took the most powerful programming paradigm of
> the day, and destroyed it's ability to be profitable.
> I say we. I was just a little late to the party. I started with
> Forth in 1980, when John Bumgarner and Dave Bolton visited
> Rockwell, helped us port it to the AIM-65, they came to me for
> technical support on the development system. I wouldn't have
> know of Forth, probably, without the actions of FIG.
> Later FIG did about everything it could to be anti-business,
> significantly undercutting Forth based business, including, as
> one example, Dash Find Placement agency, started by me and sold
> to Larry Forsley, that commercial prosperity promoting the
> language was not possible, and as a result, Forth programmers
> had no professional way to find paying jobs.
> Would we do the same again with LabVIEW?
> There is an open source LabVIEW group I mentioned in another
> post, openG.org iirc. I don't think they intend to release
> LabVIEW clones, but perhaps open LabVIEW apps.
- Hi Peter,
Peter Balch wrote:
> AlanThat would be much appreciated!
> OK, that would work. As I say, I'm very happy to give away all my
> documentation of the interface. Only a couple of people have ever asked for
> more info as though they were doing something technical.
> I'll send you some stuff.
>>Well, not THAT hard to handle text in C! Don't know much about Delphi,That's right, it's like Pascal. I remember now. I think I ran across
>>something like BASIC, as I recall.
it on the Turbocnc list. Turbocnc is written in Pascal. No intent to
start a flame war!
> Wow! Prepare to duck. Expect to get flamed if you say things like that nearSeems like it was hard to find a copy from Borland to compile Turbocnc
> a Delphi fan. Delphi Pascal is about equivalent to C++ but with a very much
> cleaner syntax and with much stronger typing. So bugs that can have you
> stumped for an hour in C++ are either caught by the compiler or actually
> impossible to write in the first place. Anything you can do in C, you can do
> in Delphi - and write it faster. The code it produces is around 10% faster
> than that produced by a C++ compiler even though all the run-time bounds
> checking and the like is turned on. That surprises C programmers who believe
> that, because C is lower-level than Pascal, it must produce faster code. In
> fact, because Pascal was designed to be easy to compile, it's easier to
> optimise. As for strings, since version 4, strings can be any length and are
> kept on a heap with automatic garbage collection (along with other variable
> length arrays). So you never have to worry about allocating buffers or
> memory leaks. The Delphi SDK is so much faster and slicker than any C SDK
> I've used. I reckon I can write apps for around 50% to 70% of what it would
> cost in C++.
with at the time. I'm used to C, like a pair of old shoes.
> (I'm writing C, C++ and Obj-C just now on a Mac for the iPhone and it'sI don't have any experience with Mac or Apple's, and my phone is a very
> absolutely horrid having to worry about all that memory nonsense - the
> compiler should do it for me. BTW There was a suggestion a month or so ago
> that perhaps an iPhone or iPod Touch would be good as a robot's brain.
> Forget it. The SDK is dreadful. But, much worse, getting an app that you've
> written on your own Mac onto your own iPhone is fantastically complex,
> unreliable and you have to pay Apple $99 for the priviledge to do so. Forums
> and blogs are full of developers tearing their hair out trying to get
> Apple's byzantine systems to work so they can actually run their own code on
> their own phone. Wait for Google's Android OS.)
> All the best.
simple device. I think I'll stick to some of Microchip's offerings for