[fonc] PICOBIT (was: OPERATING SYSTEM ON A FPGA)
Josh Grams wrote: > I have always wondered how far in that direction you could go with > Scheme or another high-level dynamic language. In my (again, fairly > uninformed) opinion it seems mainly a question of how much of the > dynamic stuff can be analysed and compiled down to static code to reduce > the runtime size/speed costs, and whether you can give the programmer > the fine-grained control over memory usage that they might need for such > limited systems. Take a look at the paper "PICOBIT: A Compact Scheme System for Microcontrollers" by Vincent St-Amour and Marc Feeley: http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~feeley/papers/StAmourFeeleyIFL09.pdf They implement a cross development system to run Scheme in less than 7KB of memory in Microchip PC18 microcontrollers. For those of us who prefer native systems to cross development, "The LISP Implementation for the PDP- 1 Computer" by L. Peter Deutsch and Edmund C . Berkeley is an interesting text from 1984: > http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/DEC/pdp-1/DEC.pdp_1.1964.102650371.pdf That Lisp system needed at least 2000 registers (roughly equivalent to 4500 bytes) to run, though it could make use of larger configurations. Unlike PICOBIT, this is a fully interactive operating system. http://simh.trailing-edge.com/kits/lispswre.zip -- Jecel ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Me too! A META-II for Lua
On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 03:58:46PM -0800, Long Nguyen wrote: > Why you too proud? Hand compiling indeed sucks. I did it so you don't have > to. Now I'm offended. > But awesome work anyway. Well, I had something to prove. :-) Seriously though, I also wanted to make sure I understood how the damn thing ran. I feared I may not have if I leant on your work. So, while hand compiling does suck for practical purposes, the educational value was worth it. I will write a tutorial about the execution model so people don't need to do hand compiling to understand it. Those who have something to prove can suffer like I did (muhaha). Now the next step (and my goal all along) is OMeta. Meta-II was great, but it had a critical flaw: while it looks declarative, it is imperative at the core. OMeta on the other hand is functional by default: parsing something in OMeta yields a value, not an effect. The result is much more modular and flexible. (I wonder where Alex Warth gathered this golden outlook. Even James Neighbor of Bayfront Technologies did not seem to have it, and he wrote one hell of a tutorial: http://www.bayfronttechnologies.com/mc_tutorial.html ) Anyway, thanks for the heads up! Loup. ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] Views in FoNC
"the reason one is doing something" is a noun-group that describes a noun. "reasoning of the human mind as a process" is ALSO a noun-group that describes a noun. Functional-grammarly speaking, that is. ;-) Even so, even in a traditional grammatical sense, "reasoning" and "a reason" are both nouns. Julian On 09/12/2012, at 11:23 AM, David Barbour wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: > > "a" reason, not "reason". Note I didn't say "reasoning comes before > processing". I meant "a reason to do something" surely must come before and > inform "a process to do". As in... the point of doing what you're doing. > > Yes, I understood that. But it is not a significant difference whether you > use reason as a noun or verb. As a noun, reason is oft discovered in the > doing, or inspired in the exploration. > > -- > bringing s-words to a pen fight > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
