[ColorForth] Cross purposes.....

["Arthur W. Green" <goshawk@xxxxxxx>]

Mr. Fox wrote:
> 
> I am of the opinion that the best colorForth
> to study now is the target compiler in it
> and the simulator and using the target
> compiler and simulator.  Using colorForth
> more to real colorForth.  How can one
> really understand colorForth from only
> the Pentium version?  It is not only full
> of ugly stuff required on Pentium, but
> understanding Pentium is 1000 times
> more difficult than understanding the
> target chips which when understood
> cause the real ideas behind colorForth
> to make real sense.
> 
>
The opinions I have posted in my previous posts are the futile "stabs in the
dark" of someone who has only the resources (and therefore the "immediate"
interest) of maximizing his personal use of colorForth for the Pentium PC. 

This is not so much because I am stubborn or do not see the connection of
colorForth to Mr. Moore's chip designs (although these may very well be the
cases as well), as it is what I believe Mr. Fox [had at least indirectly]
pointed out, the Pentium version of colorForth could be considered a hack of Mr.
Moore's own chip(s) at best because of well...the obvious.

So, with the risk of hopefully not to sounding too conventionally minded (aka.
boxed-in), I am thinking that maybe I shouldn't entirely try to "get" Mr.
Moore's ideas "just" from colorForth, which Mr. Fox seemed to have deemed nearly
impossible anyway, and instead focus on what I can do with colorForth as I
conceive it on the Pentium and see if anyone else actually cares in the end.

It is not so much out of "conventionalism" as it is the kind of hardware support
I desire for my project simply doesn't seem to exist in any real form for Mr.
Moore's "MISC" designs. I don't have the competance to build the supporting
circuitry for such hardware on my own (at least at this stage), so I am left in
what is rapidly appearing to me as rather awkward position for me here on the
colorForth list. That is that my idea for colorForth is probably at odds what
everyone else "in the know" wants for it (particularly Mr. Moore and Mr. Fox),
which makes me seriously want to rethink my position on colorForth a few more
times and see what I might be missing in the whole context of things.

(Which leads me to recall my response to Mr. Harms-Merbitz's message, when I had
stated that I thought maybe his "wants" for colorForth contradicted the design
philosophy. With your statements in mind, I realize that surely I was the one
contradicting colorForth's design philosophy, and not Mr. Harms-Merbitz, who
probably was closer to the point than I was. For that, I apologize to Mr.
Hams-Merbitz.)

This is not to say I won't follow Mr. Moore's work. Quite the opposite, I am
very interested in Mr. Moore's chips and will go out on a limb to work on them,
or at least to work at trying to understand them until I have the resources to
do the former. Particularly, because I don't believe it is inconceivable at all
to find common ground between Mr. Moore's designs and what I had in mind, so I
will stay very optimistic for the day when I can put two and two together.

So, I hope you'll understand that my main priority (and therefore the root of
many of my opinions, as I realized after a recent post of Mr. Fox's) is
maximizing colorForth as a "custom solution" for my projects (which for now, is
on the Pentium-based computer running the hardware of my choice (or at least the
best I can afford of what is commecially available)), rather than the apparently
more tried and code base for a chip simulator. Again, this isn't to say I won't
spend time with this when its available...quite the opposite, but it just isn't
the only thing I wanted to do with the Pentium version of colorForth until I
have the resources needed to make a credible attempt at making something more of
Mr. Moore's designs for myself. (You know the saying...if you are going to do
something, do it well...)

I hope no one will hold it against me [for too long] for straying too far from
Mr. Moore's original ideas for colorForth for the time being, or not being
entirely "open" to collaboration, as I often feel like my ideas aren't
particularly valid in the mainstream sense. Not right, not better, not
particularly different, just not popular. Which is a pretty mediocre place to
be, now that I think about it, which is something I will definitely work to
improve.

Anyone have thoughts about this? Just how far off am I?

--
On a side note, I had a lot of other stuff to say, but I decided not to include
that in this post. So, I apologize for any "holes" in the presentation. =)
--

Best regards,
-- Art
------------------------

To Unsubscribe from this list, send mail to Mdaemon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with:
unsubscribe ColorForth
as the first and only line within the message body
Problems   -   List-Admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main ColorForth site   -   http://www.colorforth.com