Lpc2000

rtstofer wrote:

>MANY years ago I was involved with writing the code to hang hard
>drives and run CP/M on Apple IIs.
>
>At the time, disk controllers were complex circuit boards with lot of
>parts and drives weren't all that reliable.
>
>One of the controller manufacturers I visited used Forth extensively
>in their testing process because it allowed for bottom-up testing and
>debugging.
>
>Write the code to send bits to a port.
>Write code to call the port code and send commands to the port.
>...etc.  Always building from the bottom up.
>
>At each step of the development all the lower level code was available. 
>
>Now, the neat thing was the simplicity of interactively defining a new
>word (function) that would simply extend the underlying, already known
>working, code.  Need a different functional test?  Define a word that
>uses what is already known working and interactively available.
>
>I was staggered by the simplicity.  I was not converted, just staggered. 
>
>I have no intention of using Forth nor any desire to start a language
>war but there is a certain elegance in the approach.  It is also
>obscure, backward reading and a lot of other things.  But it is elegant.
>
>It's odd how some languages stick and others fall away.  Twenty five
>years ago I thought C would be replaced by D (fictious successor to C)
>or even Pascal.  I still prefer Pascal.  Shows you what I know...
>  
>

WhiteSmiths did bring out a "D" language. It had some ambiguities and 
sometimes it would generate code totally different than what you said.  
I think that I may even have the compiler around someplace on a CD..

TomW


-- 
Tom Walsh - WN3L - Embedded Systems Consultant
http://openhardware.net, http://cyberiansoftware.com
"Windows? No thanks, I have work to do..."
----------------------------------------------------