Re: [stack] Concatenative Hardware

Christopher Diggins <[email protected]> wrote:
> William Tanksley, Jr <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Then you'll certainly want to study Capability
> > based security.

> For non-mission critical embedded systems, is
> this really a huge gain?

Sorry, I had a different understanding of 'minimalist' than you do.
Yes, there's no need to implement capabilities when you don't need any
process security at all.

> How should an architecture react in the case of catastrophe (i.e.
> capability violation)? Some kind of interrupt mechanism I imagine?

The Baker system can't express a capability violation (it's simply not
possible). For most other systems, a capability violation is the same
as accessing a page of memory that doesn't exist -- page fault. It
doesn't mean somebody's being bad; it simply means someone tried to
access memory using something that isn't a pointer.

> It would be interesting to implement a Cat machine using one of those
> SeaForth 24 chips.

I agree.

> - Christopher

-Billy