Re: [colorforth] abort

["Michael M. Butler" <mmb@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:56:39 -0400 (EDT), Mark Slicker 
<maslicke@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There apears to be clear tradeoffs between the aproachs. Forth in style
> of Chuck Moore is pushing the limits of the machine, producing code
> which is small, simple, fast and efficient. The consequence is that a
> greater amount of skill is needed by the programmer and the system is 
> more fragile.

But consider that "fragile" might be good if you want the (sub)system to 
"break" clearly and unambiguously when something goes horribly wrong.  I 
sometimes use the adjective "crystalline" or "gemlike" to describe those 
sorts of systems. One can make fairly robust systems out of fragile parts 
(subsumption architectures, for one example). "Divide and conquer."

An analogy: My camping axe is fragile, if I hit a big enough rock with it. 
But at least I get a good clear indication that something is wrong when I 
break the head off of my axe. I didn't get lost in the "axe call" of my 
currently-executing thread...

MMB

PS: I think the only acceptable reason for a stack underflow in validated 
FORTH code ought to be a cosmic ray hit. :)

--
I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization. 
Sometimes I forget.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com