Re: [colorforth] DOES> How is colorForth different from other Forths?

["Samuel A. Falvo II" <kc5tja@xxxxxxxx>]

On Saturday 24 January 2004 10:17 pm, Mark Slicker wrote:
> Nothing, but then why would you embed a general purpose CPU of this
> kind in a chip if the chip has no observable capability of
> interpreting instructions?

For the simple case of reducing production costs.  FPGAs came about for 
the same reason: by changing a simple mask or grid of switches you can 
reconfigure entire chips to do entirely different things.  But a CPU can 
do something an FPGA cannot: maintain an arbitrary amount of complex 
state (up to the amount imposed by RAM limitations of course), though at 
the expense of speed.

This is why PIC microcontrollers are so often used today.  Simple, 8-pin 
devices look and behave *exactly* like (slow-speed) custom ASICs, yet 
contain a moderately powerful 8-bit RISC core inside.

One mask means less chip debugging, despite multitudes of different 
product lines for the company.

> > If Chuck *were* rolling in the cash, he'd at least hire someone to
> > renovate his website and maintain a list of current ColorForth
> > events, news, articles, etc. if he couldn't find the time to do it
> > himself.
>
> Is this meant to prove MISC as not commercially viable?

No.  It is an opinion paragraph.

> Sorry, I must have missed this observation, which company is producing
> FREE CPUs?

None, but if I could get away with designing and embedding a MISC core in 
my own commercial product for $0 in royalties what-so-ever, you better 
believe I will.

--
Samuel A. Falvo II


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