Just out of curiosity, you old troll, what software do you use and why do you use it? "Airy R. Bean" <airy.r.bean@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message news:c05qmm$12odrt$3@ID-217727.news.uni-berlin.de...> Irrelevant. The penalty of high maintenance costs > for unreadable source codes is not outweighed by > any compilation. > > "Stephen Pelc" <stephenXXX@INVALID.mpeltd.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:4024d1a3.655143765@192.168.0.1... > > On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:59:20 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > >I'm tired of people whose last acquaintance with Forth was before 1985 > > >telling me that Forth, like Latin, is a dead language. > > And the technology is totally different these days. These days > > Forth compiler produce code as good as that produced by C > > compilers. > >
DSP book recommendations
Started by ●February 1, 2004
Reply by ●February 8, 20042004-02-08
Reply by ●February 8, 20042004-02-08
John Sigurdson wrote:> Just out of curiosity, you old troll, what software do you use and why do > you use it? > > "Airy R. Bean" <airy.r.bean@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message > news:c05qmm$12odrt$3@ID-217727.news.uni-berlin.de... > >>Irrelevant. The penalty of high maintenance costs >>for unreadable source codes is not outweighed by >>any compilation. >> >>"Stephen Pelc" <stephenXXX@INVALID.mpeltd.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:4024d1a3.655143765@192.168.0.1... >> >>>On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:59:20 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I'm tired of people whose last acquaintance with Forth was before 1985 >>>>telling me that Forth, like Latin, is a dead language. >>> >>>And the technology is totally different these days. These days >>>Forth compiler produce code as good as that produced by C >>>compilers.I use C the way that traders once used Swahili, as a Lingua Franca of the computer world. I use Forth because it is compact and succinct, and because for me, at least, it nearly eliminates bugs of expression. By that, I mean that my Forth code almost always does what I decided it should. Most of the bugs that I have to deal with arise from bad design, not bad code. I have an old Borland C compiler that suits my needs. I noodle around my DSP boards mostly with assembler because I find it almost as straight- forward as Forth, and I write PC applications mostly in SwiftForth, but sometimes in FPC. I play with VFX Forth, but I have only an evaluation copy. My latest embedded project was with New Micro's MAXforth. Do you code anything useful? With what language? Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●February 9, 20042004-02-09
stephenXXX@INVALID.mpeltd.demon.co.uk (Stephen Pelc) wrote in message news:<40269fee.773491500@192.168.0.1>...> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:05:39 -0000, "Airy R. Bean" > <airy.r.bean@lycos.co.uk> wrote: > > >Irrelevant. The penalty of high maintenance costs > >for unreadable source codes is not outweighed by > >any compilation. > > I've spent enough time reading badly written and undocumented > code in C and other languages to know that unreadable source > code is a programmer problem not a language problem. In essence > this is a management issue. > > Or is there a troll about?Apropos code management and trolls, there is a company, TrollTech, which produces the Qt library which they claim to be directly protable between most relevant computer platforms. Check out www.trolltech.com. Does anyone know if this Qt library is as portable as claimed? I have seen the free versions that come with some releases of the linux OS and I like what I see, but I'm interested in portability. Rune
Reply by ●February 15, 20042004-02-15
OPPS - A thousand apologies, Jerry - Was directing my last at Airy R. Bean, not you Jerry. I was confused by the attributions and my lack of attention... I agree with you about Forth vs. Alternatives and have for over 25 yrs. John "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:4026b035$0$3196$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...> John Sigurdson wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, you old troll, what software do you use and whydo> > you use it? > > > > "Airy R. Bean" <airy.r.bean@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:c05qmm$12odrt$3@ID-217727.news.uni-berlin.de... > > > >>Irrelevant. The penalty of high maintenance costs > >>for unreadable source codes is not outweighed by > >>any compilation. > >> > >>"Stephen Pelc" <stephenXXX@INVALID.mpeltd.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > >>news:4024d1a3.655143765@192.168.0.1... > >> > >>>On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:59:20 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>I'm tired of people whose last acquaintance with Forth was before 1985 > >>>>telling me that Forth, like Latin, is a dead language. > >>> > >>>And the technology is totally different these days. These days > >>>Forth compiler produce code as good as that produced by C > >>>compilers. > > I use C the way that traders once used Swahili, as a Lingua Franca of > the computer world. I use Forth because it is compact and succinct, and > because for me, at least, it nearly eliminates bugs of expression. By > that, I mean that my Forth code almost always does what I decided it > should. Most of the bugs that I have to deal with arise from bad design, > not bad code. > > I have an old Borland C compiler that suits my needs. I noodle around my > DSP boards mostly with assembler because I find it almost as straight- > forward as Forth, and I write PC applications mostly in SwiftForth, but > sometimes in FPC. I play with VFX Forth, but I have only an evaluation > copy. My latest embedded project was with New Micro's MAXforth. Do you > code anything useful? With what language? > > Jerry > -- > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. > ����������������������������������������������������������������������� >
Reply by ●February 15, 20042004-02-15
If that were the case, and you also expected a reply, then you would do well to adopt a more mature attitude to debate in a public forum. Childish outbursts such as you employed below will get you nowhere. Grow up, OM. "John Sigurdson" <jsigurdson@ricochet.com> wrote in message news:402ef97d_1@omega.dimensional.com...> OPPS - A thousand apologies, Jerry - Was directing my last at Airy R.Bean,> not you Jerry. I was confused by the attributions and my lack of > attention... I agree with you about Forth vs. Alternatives and have for > over 25 yrs. > "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message > news:4026b035$0$3196$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > John Sigurdson wrote: > > > Just out of curiosity, you old troll, what software do you use and why > do > > > you use it? > > > "Airy R. Bean" <airy.r.bean@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message > > > news:c05qmm$12odrt$3@ID-217727.news.uni-berlin.de... > > >>Irrelevant. The penalty of high maintenance costs > > >>for unreadable source codes is not outweighed by > > >>any compilation. > > >>"Stephen Pelc" <stephenXXX@INVALID.mpeltd.demon.co.uk> wrote inmessage> > >>news:4024d1a3.655143765@192.168.0.1... > > >>>On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:59:20 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: > > >>>>I'm tired of people whose last acquaintance with Forth was before1985> > >>>>telling me that Forth, like Latin, is a dead language. > > >>>And the technology is totally different these days. These days > > >>>Forth compiler produce code as good as that produced by C > > >>>compilers. > > I use C the way that traders once used Swahili, as a Lingua Franca of > > the computer world. I use Forth because it is compact and succinct, and > > because for me, at least, it nearly eliminates bugs of expression. By > > that, I mean that my Forth code almost always does what I decided it > > should. Most of the bugs that I have to deal with arise from bad design, > > not bad code. > > I have an old Borland C compiler that suits my needs. I noodle around my > > DSP boards mostly with assembler because I find it almost as straight- > > forward as Forth, and I write PC applications mostly in SwiftForth, but > > sometimes in FPC. I play with VFX Forth, but I have only an evaluation > > copy. My latest embedded project was with New Micro's MAXforth. Do you > > code anything useful? With what language?
Reply by ●February 15, 20042004-02-15
"Airy R. Bean" <airy.r.bean@lycos.co.uk> wrote in message news:c0neta$18nhft$1@ID-217727.news.uni-berlin.de...> If that were the case, and you also expected a reply, then you would do > well to adopt a more mature attitude to debate in a public forum. > > Childish outbursts such as you employed below will get you nowhere. > > Grow up, OM.You still hanging around trying to pretend you know anything about DSP. How is the negative time and frequency study going? Chimera
Reply by ●February 15, 20042004-02-15
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<4026b035$0$3196$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...> My latest embedded project was with New Micro's MAXforth.I December I made a comment that you were using a 68HC11, to which you replied that I had you confused with someome else. Sorry. I was confused about which New Micro's product you were using. maybe 12 instead of 11, maybe 68832, don't know but I did know it was MAXforth, and I do know who you are. Best Wishes
Reply by ●February 15, 20042004-02-15
Jeff Fox wrote:> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<4026b035$0$3196$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>... > >>My latest embedded project was with New Micro's MAXforth. > > > I December I made a comment that you were using a 68HC11, > to which you replied that I had you confused with someome else. > Sorry. I was confused about which New Micro's product you > were using. maybe 12 instead of 11, maybe 68832, don't know > but I did know it was MAXforth, and I do know who you are. > > Best WishesI don't remember your post, Jeff, but I do use an NMI 68HC11 board. So do many other people, and that's why you may have mixed me up with another user. I don't remember the message, so I can't comment further. I also have a '12 board, but I haven't used it much. Right now, a friend has custody of it. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●February 16, 20042004-02-16
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<402fe9a5$0$3076$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>...> I don't remember your post, Jeff, but I do use an NMI 68HC11 board. So > do many other people, and that's why you may have mixed me up with > another user. I don't remember the message, so I can't comment further.You may indeed still be mixed up. I did not mix you up with another user at any time. I remember your posts and your emails and the details of your childhood stories about school and the government agents. I still have the emails. I have seen your picture and been to your website. I was not mixed up about who you were yesterday nor was I mixed up about who you were in December although at that time you wrote:> You must be thinking of someone else. My ideal computer is so lean that > it disappears when viewed sideways. I'm the guy who reports processing > time in inches to adjust clients perspectives.I was not thinking of anyone else except you. I was indeed thinking of you in December when I made a comment that apparently left you mixed up. You have given some details about the number of clock cycles and frequencies involved with the NMI product. Perhaps you can tell us more about this ideal computer of yours that disappears when viewed sideways. Are you describing a holographic computer with a thinkness less than the wavelength of light visible to the human eye? Are you working with that stuff now? Can you also give an example of how you report processing time in inches? Inches is not a unit of time. Perhaps you are just as mixed up as the people who refer to a light year as a vast expanse of time instead of distance. I'm one of the guys who reports processing time in light inches or less, picoseconds or femtoseconds. Maybe you are just mixed up about to whom you were talking. Best Wishes
Reply by ●February 16, 20042004-02-16
Jeff Fox wrote:> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<402fe9a5$0$3076$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>... > >>I don't remember your post, Jeff, but I do use an NMI 68HC11 board. So >>do many other people, and that's why you may have mixed me up with >>another user. I don't remember the message, so I can't comment further. > > > You may indeed still be mixed up. I did not mix you up with another user > at any time. I remember your posts and your emails and the details > of your childhood stories about school and the government agents. I still > have the emails. I have seen your picture and been to your website. > I was not mixed up about who you were yesterday nor was I mixed up > about who you were in December although at that time you wrote: > > >>You must be thinking of someone else. My ideal computer is so lean that >>it disappears when viewed sideways. I'm the guy who reports processing >>time in inches to adjust clients perspectives. > > > I was not thinking of anyone else except you. I was indeed thinking > of you in December when I made a comment that apparently left you mixed > up. You have given some details about the number of clock cycles and > frequencies involved with the NMI product. > > Perhaps you can tell us more about this ideal computer of yours > that disappears when viewed sideways. Are you describing a > holographic computer with a thinkness less than the wavelength > of light visible to the human eye? Are you working with that > stuff now? > > Can you also give an example of how you report processing time > in inches? Inches is not a unit of time. Perhaps you are just as > mixed up as the people who refer to a light year as a vast expanse > of time instead of distance. > > I'm one of the guys who reports processing time in light inches > or less, picoseconds or femtoseconds. Maybe you are just mixed > up about to whom you were talking. > > Best WishesJeff, I don't remember our December exchange, but the phrases you ascribe to me are ones I use often. "Disappears if turned sideways" is a metaphor for "very lean". I apply it to people, too. (It was once a description of me.) When I was building machine controllers with 8-bit, 4-Mhz processors (because simpler is less prone to error), clients worried that those machines weren't fast enough to work in real time. Mechanical things move slowly on scales used by computers. A machine part moving at 600 ft/sec seems frighteningly fast. Nevertheless, an interrupt service that needs 100 microseconds is completed before the part has moved 3/4 inch. The "latest and greatest" processors of the time (80186) were much faster than my Z-80s. Expressing time as the distance moved by a standard bridged my client's understanding gap. To have a common measure, I adopted the approximate speed of sound in air, roughly 330 meter/sec. Using that that scale, a microsecond translates to .013 inch. Perspective is good. Most people have a better feel for the size of an inch than for the duration of microsecond. Aside from your taking metaphor (which I tend to use freely) more literally than I intended, I don't see the underlying problem that you want to address. Where have I failed? What do you believe I did wrong? Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
