On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:53 AM, David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:40:35AM -0700, Bob La Quey wrote: > > >The Intellasys SeaForth 24 chip was designed with the tools > >that you are disparaging. How would you have designed such > >a chip? > > Probably more like the rest of the world does chip design. > > Honestly, I don't think normal chip design is very good either. And, I > think that Moore's tools are a great step in the right direction. > > My problem with Forth in general is an ability to get far enough away from > the hardware. Bit manipulation is fine when you are doing bit > manipulation. Doing symbolic manipulation (chip design is entirely > symbolic, nothing about the problem runs on the hardware that the design > software runs on) does not involve. > > There is an unwillingness in forth to abstract away which keeps every thing > down at this strange high and low level mixture. You can might high-level > words, but they still hand pointers to things around.
So? Why is handing pointers around a _bad_ way to abstract? And BTW token Forths simply impose one level of table and do _not_ hand pointers around. This has obvious advantages and disadvantages. BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
