Re: [Amforth-devel] Connection to host

[Matthias T. <mt...@we...>]

Hi Andy,

> Mathias
>
> I think we probably agree on a large percentage of the below.
>
> Where we probably diverge a touch is that I think forth should be 
> sufficient in and of itself.
>   

I see the point and agree with you that we disagree ;=)

> I should be able to program in forth and create further firmware in the 
> same forth. I should be able to do everything (including put a forth 
> environment on to a virgin chip) without ever needing anything but forth.
>   

Thats possible to do. Given that the controllers use the same
memory architecture. For different systems, it's not that
easy. But I miss the real need to do that task. I know of
a user that wanted to build a network of controllers that
share forth source code, but I do not remember him
talking about initializing the bare metal using the same
way.

> Mathias I don't know if you are gifted or talented (or both), certainly 
> you are a clever guy. Clearly you have proved yourself many times over 
> by producing amforth. I think you are missing out on your just 
> recognition through amforth being difficult to adopt by folk who don't 
> have enough languages under their belt.
>   
I know that amforth is difficult to use for an absolute beginner. For
both langauge and hardware reasons. I myself had to spend a lot of
time until my first microcontroller program did run (no, it was not
amforth but a simple "hello world" that flashed a LED). The only
way around I see is that those people get a pre-programmed
chip / complete system. The arduino has it's success mainly
because of those pre-programmed hardware ready to use.

Thinking that approach further: the amforth core system can
reside within 8KB flash, selecting an atmega with that boot sector
size would allow an "undestroyable" amforth system. No user
could overwrite the forth system at will or by mistake. Well, there
are still a few things more to do, but that would work.

Matthias