2025-03-12 09:22:43 <veltas      > Also Forth has a certain flexibility about it, this redefining stuff is what allows us to define any DSL we want for a problem
2025-03-12 09:23:05 <veltas      > This is certainly the early attitude about what Forth should be, anyway, whether or not it is that....
2025-03-12 09:23:57 <veltas      > And safety because you don't want to accidentally call the word currently being defined from within a [ ] block
2025-03-12 10:40:42 <veltas      > DKordic: MSP430 isn't really like a PDP-11
2025-03-12 10:41:30 <veltas      > It has some PDP-11 features, and not others.  It's like maybe 20 times faster than a PDP-11, it has less floating point options that PDP-11 had but that's probably irrelevant with how much faster it is, more registers, etc.
2025-03-12 10:42:10 <veltas      > It is interesting that an inexpensive MCU will hands-down wipe the floor with a $40k minicomputer from 1970, for some tasks
2025-03-12 10:42:39 <veltas      > But I'm more interested in actually emulating a PDP-11 rather than getting the compute capabilities, which I can get anywhere cheap
2025-03-12 10:43:15 <GeDaMo      > https://obsolescence.wixsite.com/obsolescence/pidp-11
2025-03-12 11:46:23 <veltas      > GeDaMo: Right now I'm thinking we might have some fun if I host a PDP-11 emulator and let people "dial in" to it via some simple protocol, and we an share a morth multi-tasking system
2025-03-12 11:46:49 <veltas      > With a proper classic forth on it, something that can run most of starting forth unchanged, but maybe also support the ANS words
2025-03-12 11:47:38 <veltas      > That's my idea, so not too interested in a physical reproduction, but I would like to emulate an authentic PDP-11 in some limited fasion
2025-03-12 11:47:49 <veltas      > I won't actually use a phoneline though.... unless you're on dial-up
2025-03-12 11:49:27 <GeDaMo      > pidp uses simh
2025-03-12 12:00:37 <veltas      > I'm considering simh, I've not settled on an emulator yet
2025-03-12 12:00:55 <veltas      > Mostly just been reading the manuals, which is a good read
2025-03-12 12:01:13 <veltas      > I don't know much about PDP-11 but can definitely feel the impact DEC had on UNIX and C
2025-03-12 15:11:57 <xentrac     > veltas: have you written 68000 code?  the PDP-11 is a lot like a 68000
2025-03-12 15:19:54 <veltas      > Nope, predates me
2025-03-12 15:27:09 <xentrac     > oh, it still had significant usage up till the early 21st century in things like the Treo Handspring
2025-03-12 15:27:29 <GeDaMo      > Aren't there some DSPs derived from the 68K?
2025-03-12 15:27:45 <xentrac     > (although in ColdFire they removed some of the addressing modes that were harder to implement efficiently)
2025-03-12 15:27:48 <xentrac     > it's a very pretty instruction set
2025-03-12 15:27:56 <xentrac     > GeDaMo: it wouldn't be surprising, but I can't think of one
2025-03-12 15:29:00 <GeDaMo      > It might be Coldfire I'm thinking of
2025-03-12 15:31:17 <xentrac     > I can't think of any ColdFire-based DSPs, but it wouldn't be surprising if they existed
2025-03-12 15:32:28 <GeDaMo      > Eh, my memory is unreliable :P
2025-03-12 15:35:11 <veltas      > xentrac: The company I work for did 68K CPU boards back in the day, but the only stale arch I've worked with directly was PPC
2025-03-12 15:35:49 <veltas      > The main bus we support is essentially based on the 68K system bus, but many iterations later and doing a load of stuff that wasn't possible back then anyway
2025-03-12 15:36:04 <xentrac     > yeah
2025-03-12 15:36:51 <xentrac     > one of the first programming projects I ever worked on for somebody else was a 68K tutorial for an introduction-to-assembly-language class
2025-03-12 15:37:18 <xentrac     > that probably would have been in 01994
2025-03-12 15:38:35 <xentrac     > at that point I think Macintosh was still 68K, and the PalmPilot hadn't launched, though Newton was already ARM
2025-03-12 15:39:13 <xentrac     > yeah, that was the year the PowerMac was introduced
2025-03-12 15:40:56 <xentrac     > seems like the last 68k-based Macintosh was the Performa, discontinued in 01997: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_Performa
2025-03-12 15:41:56 <xentrac     > oh, no, they kept calling them "Performa" even after they switched over to PPC
2025-03-12 15:43:31 <xentrac     > so maybe the Quadra LC 475 discontinued mid-01996: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Timeline_of_Macintosh_Centris,_LC,_Performa,_and_Quadra_models
2025-03-12 15:44:01 <xentrac     > I was still using a 68k-based Sun 3/60 in my bedroom until 02000, though.  As an X terminjal
2025-03-12 15:49:24 <veltas      > Yup we do and did do VMEbus boards, but haven't done 68k since a long time ago
2025-03-12 16:25:41 <veltas      > It does remind me of the Unibus
2025-03-12 17:18:25 <xentrac     > I don't know much at all about the bus design
2025-03-12 18:03:21 <MrMobius    > TI still sells new calculators with a 68k in them
2025-03-12 18:04:04 <MrMobius    > if you have a hankering for programming a system with one
2025-03-12 18:08:23 <xentrac     > oh, that's a good point, MrMobius
2025-03-12 18:08:36 <xentrac     > they're pretty outrageously overpriced though
2025-03-12 18:08:50 <MrMobius    > agreed
2025-03-12 18:09:09 <MrMobius    > I got a used one from craigslist for $20
2025-03-12 18:09:25 <MrMobius    > which was the prior model that didnt have the shit chevron keyboard the new ones have
2025-03-12 18:09:42 <xentrac     > what's a shit-chevron?  Is that like a Dirty Sanchez?
2025-03-12 18:09:51 <MrMobius    > it is if you want it to be :P
2025-03-12 18:10:53 <MrMobius    > I just mean I like having a straight row of keys instead of some marketing goon curving the row of keys trying to sell more calculators
2025-03-12 18:10:53 <xentrac     > there's something to be said for coming with a keyboard and a screen already connected
2025-03-12 18:11:17 <xentrac     > but I suspect qemu-m68k is a better option for most people
2025-03-12 18:11:26 <MrMobius    > ya! that's why I only collect calculators. unlike retro computers, the whole collection fits in a briefcase. dont have to worry about finding a CRT either or replacing leaky caps on ancient PSUs
2025-03-12 18:11:55 <MrMobius    > xentrac: probably so
2025-03-12 18:12:43 <MrMobius    > I was working on setting up 10 or assembler and gdb combos in a VM to give assembly noobs who mostly ask about how to set things up and usually just wont use a debugger no matter how hard you try
2025-03-12 19:09:06 <xentrac     > a bit harder with something like : narray create 0 do , loop ; for example
2025-03-12 20:24:29 <xentrac     > yakubin: btw in gforth , is defined as : , here cell allot ! ; which I think is a definition that will work in all standard Forths
2025-03-12 20:24:40 <xentrac     > so it's true that it's based on the word here
2025-03-12 20:25:34 <xentrac     > usually you don't need to make your defining words immediate because you're already in interpret state when you run them, so immediate has no effect
2025-03-12 23:35:03 <pgimeno     > veltas: "And safety because you don't want to accidentally call the word currently being defined from within a [ ] block" Wow, didn't occur to me. Just tried this in the jupiter and id did print hi! : x ." hi!" exit [ x
2025-03-12 23:47:46 <pgimeno     > without the exit it just reset the machine
2025-03-12 23:50:52 <pgimeno     > as for yakubin's request, I was wondering about the len part in ( -- addr len ), I can't think of anything but: create array here val1 , val2 , ... valN , here : array array [ swap - ] literal ; but it's not portable
2025-03-12 23:51:55 <pgimeno     > and it's a good example of the need for redefining past words instead of performing a recursive call, by the way :)