Re: [colorforth] TCP State Engine

[Mark Slicker <maslicke@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Jonah Thomas wrote:

> That was my claim.  I can believe a 3 block TCP, I have trouble
> believing a full-feature 3-block graphical web-browser.

That was pulled from thin air at this moment. A full-featured 3-block
graphical browser is not mentioned anywhere.

>
> If the C guys can do it in 4K of code (plus a few hundred bytes RAM
> for one buffer, when you get a packet out of order you discard it and
> ask them to resend it later) then likely you could do it in ColorForth
> in 3 screens.

Just to note on code size: the code is compiled for an 8-bit processor.

>  But the specs are tremendously complicated, and then
> you also have to follow common practice.  If common practice doesn't
> follow the specs you lose by following them.  And these guys say the
> specs for communicating with other TCP/IP nodes are complicated, at
> least for error conditions.  This particular implementation has more
> than 300K of documentation and a significant fraction of it is
> describing the complicated problem they're trying to solve.

There may be gains from examining common practice. If you can make
assumptions the specification would not allow you to do otherwise.

I'll give an example, by assuming a DNS server supports recurive queries,
you can make a very simple DNS resolver. I have done so.


>  > =====================================================
>
>  > Now reading this I get the impression that Jonah
>  > is saying that in order to support a full web
>  > browser you would need to implement more then the
>  > "part of TCP" that could be done in three blocks.
>  > I feel that TCP is TCP.
>
> No, I say that if you *don't* need to support a full web browser you
> can get by with just the part of TCP that you do need.  Maybe some
> sort of UDP+.  If you *do* want a full web browser then you must
> handle all the web pages that were designed for IE4.

Does IE4 require a special version of TCP?

> I figure web browsers have become kind of like commodities now, if it
> doesn't do the standard things then people will only use it for things
> commodity browsers don't do.

Would you the same about Operating Systems? How about languages? Should we
not drop what we are doing and use the commodity language C?

>  So again, it makes sense to
> me to first go after other applications than a full-service web
> browser, and it might make sense to start with applications that don't
> demand all the capabilities that TCP provides.

No is discussing a "full-service web browser", and what do mean by "it
makes sense"? To promote Forth? What do the ANS people have to show for
last 20 years or so of standardization and commidization?

I think Forth could be a complete break through if people didn't try to
marginalize it in one way or another. Chuck as defined the axioms, where
do these axioms lead? I don't think anyone has fully explored the
implications of Forth.

Mark

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