RE: PIC18Forth tester feed back.

What is the relation between your PIC18Forth testing and the
Wine experiment? Sorry I do not quite get you.

PIC can do simple things and can do it very well. However
PIC can also do advanced stuffs. This is especially true
with 18Fs and dsPICs. Later the PIC24 and dsPIC33 will be
very powerful as well. I do not think this is inappropriate.
Microchip has conquered the low end MCU market. It is 
perfectly okay for them to go higher-end. Hobbyists
are the same. They can do simple things with 12F508. They
can still do more advanced things with a 18F4550. Why not?

If you look at the latest 8051 device from Silicon Labs,
you will then think it is no longer like the old MCS51s.
High-end 8-bit MCUs can do a lot as well. dsPIC is
a good 16-bit MCU as well even though now it is not
so easy for hobbyists to work with dsPICs. PIC24 will
be dsPICs minus the dsp part.

Regards,
Xiaofan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 3:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [gnupic] PIC18Forth tester feed back.


As expected from the author, the Pic18Forth documentation is immaculte.
And it is not hidden that a lot of facilities are needed to test it.

And when I read Chen Xiao Fan's recent post:
 Mini Howto: Microchip tools under Linux with Wine,
I really [more so] believe that these tasks are bloating out of control.

IMO pic made sense as a 18-pin [maximum] DIL.
And since 'pic asm' leads to using many macros, and forth is 'like'
the ultimate macro-multiplyer/controller, and a picforth with
IMO an 'appropriate minimalist view' was available I tried it.

Right now I'm afraid to open up the PIC18Forth project.
I've never yet even run python.

A [single wheel] wheel-barrow is a marvelous tool.
But it you start modifying/refining it to ape a luxury passenger
vehicle, it becomes inappropriate/absurd.

Isn't pic following this inappropriate route ?

== Chris Glur.