Re: [colorforth] abort

[Mark Slicker <maslicke@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Michael M. Butler wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:56:39 -0400 (EDT), Mark Slicker
> <maslicke@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > There apears to be clear tradeoffs between the aproachs. Forth in style
> > of Chuck Moore is pushing the limits of the machine, producing code
> > which is small, simple, fast and efficient. The consequence is that a
> > greater amount of skill is needed by the programmer and the system is
> > more fragile.
>
> But consider that "fragile" might be good if you want the (sub)system to
> "break" clearly and unambiguously when something goes horribly wrong.  I
> sometimes use the adjective "crystalline" or "gemlike" to describe those
> sorts of systems. One can make fairly robust systems out of fragile parts
> (subsumption architectures, for one example). "Divide and conquer."
>

With the system contained in one slab of memory and operations to modify
memory, errors in one subsystem can effect all other subsystems. It can
in fact make the source of error unclear and ambiguous. In other systems
errors in sub programs can be bounded. In this sense I think colorForth is
fragile. This is one area I'm interested in, programming styles which make
errors impossible and the proofs of their correctness. I think it possible
to develop such a style in colorForth, if hasn't already been done.

Mark


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com