Author: Keith Evans
Date: 16:26:50 02/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 2004 at 14:47:42, Dan Andersson wrote: > Hear, Hear! I also tend to the Forth camp. I was introduced to them both about >the same time in the seventies. Forth lacks first class functions and it is not >immediately obvious how the stack is manipulated by a word by its use alone. But >I find that the CREATES DOES construct infinitely powerful. As well the fact >that Forth is sematics and no syntax. And the Reverse Polish Notation (RPN) is >more pure that PN and parantheses, IMO. The possibility to use assembler >directly in the high level code is an added bonus. > If one wants to go whole hog FP there are Forth-like languages like Joy. Those >belong to the Concatenative Languages group. > If I am to design a Domain Specific Language for chess f.ex. both LISP/Scheme >and Forth are definite primary candidates. > >MvH Dan Andersson Since you mention forth... A while back you mentioned that you were looking for a project involving some hardware design. You can take a look at what people have done to implement forth processors in FPGAs. You could put quite a large number of forth processors in an FPGA - see Bernd Paysan's small core for example: http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/b16.html There are many cores out there like this, probably because they are so easy to make. Bernd's is interesting because it's the first literate verilog program that I've seen. Dr Ting also has some projects that are interesting, because I think that he walks through the whole process of getting eForth up and running. The hard thing would be figuring out how to make use of a lot of small processors to accelerate chess. -K
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.