09:22:43
##forth
<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
09:23:05
##forth
<veltas>
This is certainly the early attitude about what Forth should be, anyway, whether or not it is that....
09:23:57
##forth
<veltas>
And safety because you don't want to accidentally call the word currently being defined from within a [ ] block
10:40:42
##forth
<veltas>
DKordic: MSP430 isn't really like a PDP-11
10:41:30
##forth
<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.
10:42:10
##forth
<veltas>
It is interesting that an inexpensive MCU will hands-down wipe the floor with a $40k minicomputer from 1970, for some tasks
10:42:39
##forth
<veltas>
But I'm more interested in actually emulating a PDP-11 rather than getting the compute capabilities, which I can get anywhere cheap
11:46:23
##forth
<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
11:46:49
##forth
<veltas>
With a proper classic forth on it, something that can run most of starting forth unchanged, but maybe also support the ANS words
11:47:38
##forth
<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
11:47:49
##forth
<veltas>
I won't actually use a phoneline though.... unless you're on dial-up
11:49:27
##forth
<GeDaMo>
pidp uses simh
12:00:37
##forth
<veltas>
I'm considering simh, I've not settled on an emulator yet
12:00:55
##forth
<veltas>
Mostly just been reading the manuals, which is a good read
12:01:13
##forth
<veltas>
I don't know much about PDP-11 but can definitely feel the impact DEC had on UNIX and C
15:11:57
##forth
<xentrac>
veltas: have you written 68000 code? the PDP-11 is a lot like a 68000
15:19:54
##forth
<veltas>
Nope, predates me
15:27:09
##forth
<xentrac>
oh, it still had significant usage up till the early 21st century in things like the Treo Handspring
15:27:29
##forth
<GeDaMo>
Aren't there some DSPs derived from the 68K?
15:27:45
##forth
<xentrac>
(although in ColdFire they removed some of the addressing modes that were harder to implement efficiently)
15:27:48
##forth
<xentrac>
it's a very pretty instruction set
15:27:56
##forth
<xentrac>
GeDaMo: it wouldn't be surprising, but I can't think of one
15:29:00
##forth
<GeDaMo>
It might be Coldfire I'm thinking of
15:31:17
##forth
<xentrac>
I can't think of any ColdFire-based DSPs, but it wouldn't be surprising if they existed
15:32:28
##forth
<GeDaMo>
Eh, my memory is unreliable :P
15:35:11
##forth
<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
15:35:49
##forth
<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
15:36:04
##forth
<xentrac>
yeah
15:36:51
##forth
<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
15:37:18
##forth
<xentrac>
that probably would have been in 01994
15:38:35
##forth
<xentrac>
at that point I think Macintosh was still 68K, and the PalmPilot hadn't launched, though Newton was already ARM
15:39:13
##forth
<xentrac>
yeah, that was the year the PowerMac was introduced
15:41:56
##forth
<xentrac>
oh, no, they kept calling them "Performa" even after they switched over to PPC
15:44:01
##forth
<xentrac>
I was still using a 68k-based Sun 3/60 in my bedroom until 02000, though. As an X terminjal
15:49:24
##forth
<veltas>
Yup we do and did do VMEbus boards, but haven't done 68k since a long time ago
16:25:41
##forth
<veltas>
It does remind me of the Unibus
17:18:25
##forth
<xentrac>
I don't know much at all about the bus design
18:03:21
##forth
<MrMobius>
TI still sells new calculators with a 68k in them
18:04:04
##forth
<MrMobius>
if you have a hankering for programming a system with one
18:08:23
##forth
<xentrac>
oh, that's a good point, MrMobius
18:08:36
##forth
<xentrac>
they're pretty outrageously overpriced though
18:08:50
##forth
<MrMobius>
agreed
18:09:09
##forth
<MrMobius>
I got a used one from craigslist for $20
18:09:25
##forth
<MrMobius>
which was the prior model that didnt have the shit chevron keyboard the new ones have
18:09:42
##forth
<xentrac>
what's a shit-chevron? Is that like a Dirty Sanchez?
18:09:51
##forth
<MrMobius>
it is if you want it to be :P
18:10:53
##forth
<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
18:10:53
##forth
<xentrac>
there's something to be said for coming with a keyboard and a screen already connected
18:11:17
##forth
<xentrac>
but I suspect qemu-m68k is a better option for most people
18:11:26
##forth
<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
18:11:55
##forth
<MrMobius>
xentrac: probably so
18:12:43
##forth
<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
19:09:06
##forth
<xentrac>
a bit harder with something like : narray create 0 do , loop ; for example
20:24:29
##forth
<xentrac>
yakubin: btw in gforth , is defined as : , here cell allot ! ; which I think is a definition that will work in all standard Forths
20:24:40
##forth
<xentrac>
so it's true that it's based on the word here
20:25:34
##forth
<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
23:35:03
##forth
<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
23:47:46
##forth
<pgimeno>
without the exit it just reset the machine
23:50:52
##forth
<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
23:51:55
##forth
<pgimeno>
and it's a good example of the need for redefining past words instead of performing a recursive call, by the way :)