On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 2:58:51 PM UTC, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> As I had a bit of time
> and there was actually a positive post,
> I gave the PDF an update up to the contents of today,
> so people can read it all in context.
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ah8umk0hgq1818s/AAC8nNEueZZcIYJ8uGP4F4wPa?dl=0

Remind me, what was it Mark Twain said about wrestling with a pig?

On Monday, 15 November 2021 at 14:01:24 UTC, Jon Nicoll wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 2:58:51 PM UTC, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > As I had a bit of time
> > and there was actually a positive post,
> > I gave the PDF an update up to the contents of today,
> > so people can read it all in context.
> >
> > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ah8umk0hgq1818s/AAC8nNEueZZcIYJ8uGP4F4wPa?dl=0
> Remind me, what was it Mark Twain said about wrestling with a pig?

Please tell us more about your wrestling with your pigs.

On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 10:01:24 AM UTC-4, Jon Nicoll wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 2:58:51 PM UTC, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > As I had a bit of time
> > and there was actually a positive post,
> > I gave the PDF an update up to the contents of today,
> > so people can read it all in context.
> >
> > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ah8umk0hgq1818s/AAC8nNEueZZcIYJ8uGP4F4wPa?dl=0
> Remind me, what was it Mark Twain said about wrestling with a pig?

Pig Forth! Great idea!

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 06:32:00 UTC, johnro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 1:55:46 PM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
> > How many Forth CPUs do you plan to design? How many do you need?
> This will be the last one. The goal is to make it so when the firmware is extended for hardware interfaces or
> computation intensive processe, the compiler will be entended. For example, if the job requires a faster multiply,
> all that needs to be done is add vendor IP to the list, generate a new.v file, and build a new jed. Opcodes for new
> function are added, those that changed are updated, and any that were deleted will cause errors if used.
>
> Our present 16bit system has a USB interface, a local network, a port for wireless, a serial port for
> miscellaneous I/O, two pwm outputs, four encoder inputs, and outputs to control four axis of motion.
>
> The 32bit processor will enable us to increase the number of axis to 16, make the program space
> 60 times bigger, and execute code ten times faster, without changing the hardware.

There is a new thread started by John from Testra.
For the fun of it I formatted it slightly to make the blocks easier to read - at least for me
See the PDF for now at
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ah8umk0hgq1818s/AAC8nNEueZZcIYJ8uGP4F4wPa?dl=0

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 1:59:35 PM UTC-7, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 11:11:29 PM UTC-7, johnro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 8, 2021 at 2:08:26 AM UTC-7, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 08:19:48 UTC, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
> > Jurgen,
> > When the op code definition file for our new 32bit Forth FPGA processors is complete I'll post it.
> > Explaining how it controls the MFX compiler will give Hugh something to do ;
> > and give this thread a chance to end on a positive note.
> >
> > jrh
> John Hart's email is: jh...@testra.com
> This email is a spoof: johnro...@gmail.com
> The pig Juergen Pintaske is Tom Hart's friend --- John Hart doesn't consort with pigs.
>
> It is obvious that this post is not John Hart, the chip designer, because the writer
> does not know the difference between a processor opcode and a processor instruction.
> Whoever wrote this (almost certainly the liar Tom Hart) is using the word "opcode"
> to mean: "instruction."
>
> The retarded sales clown Tom Hart deserves to be made a Forth-200x committee member!
> I doubt that there is anybody on the Forth-200x committee who knows the difference between
> a processor opcode and a processor instruction --- they are retarded clowns too!
> Peter Knaggs failed to implement a linked list, Bernd Paysan and Anton Ertl failed to invent
> rquotations, Stephen Pelc failed to implement a string-stack. Forth-200x is a failure!
>
> I challenge all of the comp.lang.forth internet experts to put their heads together and provide
> an explanation for how processor opcodes differ from processor instructions, and also
> explain how they are related --- this should give you something to do!

Well, I gave the comp.lang.forth internet experts something to do (provide an explanation for how
processor opcodes differ from processor instructions, and also explain how they are related).
Of course they failed!
All they had to do was look this up on comp.lang.forth and parrot my words without
understanding the concept --- for example:

On Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 5:01:59 PM UTC-7, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> The MiniForth opcode had 5 fields, so it could do up to 5 instructions
> concurrently within a single clock cycle (each opcode took 1 cycle).
> These were low-level instructions that worked with registers.
> My assembler would rearrange the instructions in order to pack as many
> as possible into each opcode and minimize the number of NOP instructions
> introduced. The instructions executed out of order, but my assembler
> guaranteed that the result would be the same as if they executed
> sequentially in the same order as they had appeared in the source-code.

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 2:43:30 AM UTC-7, jpit...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 06:32:00 UTC, johnro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 1:55:46 PM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
> > > How many Forth CPUs do you plan to design? How many do you need?
> > This will be the last one. The goal is to make it so when the firmware is extended for hardware interfaces or
> > computation intensive processe, the compiler will be entended. For example, if the job requires a faster multiply,
> > all that needs to be done is add vendor IP to the list, generate a new.v file, and build a new jed. Opcodes for new
> > function are added, those that changed are updated, and any that were deleted will cause errors if used.
> >
> > Our present 16bit system has a USB interface, a local network, a port for wireless, a serial port for
> > miscellaneous I/O, two pwm outputs, four encoder inputs, and outputs to control four axis of motion.
> >
> > The 32bit processor will enable us to increase the number of axis to 16, make the program space
> > 60 times bigger, and execute code ten times faster, without changing the hardware.
> There is a new thread started by John from Testra.
> For the fun of it I formatted it slightly to make the blocks easier to read - at least for me
> See the PDF for now at
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ah8umk0hgq1818s/AAC8nNEueZZcIYJ8uGP4F4wPa?dl=0

This is the thread that Juergen Pintaske is referring to:
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/FQFdkJOhCCI
This is not John Hart. This is the spoof email: johnrogerhart@gmail.com
John Hart's email is: jhart@testra.com

My read on the situation is that John Hart has abandoned Testra and the processor
because no customer will ever buy the Testra processor now that Tom Hart has
disgraced himself publicly as a liar. Most likely, John Hart is focusing on his pro-life anti-abortion
hobby-horse. In John Hart's absence, Tom Hart searched through the computer that John Hart left
on his desk looking for the password to the website account so he could hijack John Hart's email.
Fortunately, he didn't find it, so he is still using this fake gmail address. He did find a file related
to the processor that looked important, so he posted it here on comp.lang.forth in the hope
that somebody would explain to him what it means. He is fishing for somebody who will not only
explain to him what this file means, but will also volunteer to work for Testra for free
to complete the 32-bit chip design. Good luck! Nobody is stupid enough to help Tom Hart make money.

On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 11:32:00 PM UTC-7, John Hart wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 1:55:46 PM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
> > How many Forth CPUs do you plan to design? How many do you need?
> This will be the last one. ...
> Our present 16bit system has a USB interface, a local network,
> a port for wireless, a serial port for
> miscellaneous I/O, two pwm outputs, four encoder inputs, and outputs
> to control four axis of motion.
>
> The 32bit processor will enable us to increase the number of axis to 16,
> make the program space
> 60 times bigger, and execute code ten times faster, without changing the hardware.

About a month ago I received an email that said this:
------------------------------------------------------------------
From my experience on using the ispLSI, I doubt that the isp1048
can implement any kind of CPU.
I guess that the MiniForth is running on i8032 CPU. Am I right?
------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a common belief, that it is impossible to implement a processor
on the Lattice isp1048 PLD. Typically this assertion is followed by
the unbeliever explaining that he tried to do so, but that turkey didn't fly.
Having a job interviewer believe that I'm telling a tall tale means that
I won't get the job!

I think that Tom Hart and John Hart were fools to refuse to admit
that I wrote MFX for the MiniForth, saying that I am lying about this
and that I was never anything more than a maintenance programmer for
MFX that was written by John Hart and Steve Brault before I showed up.

When people say that the MiniForth was impossible due to the
Lattice isp1048 PLD being too limited to support a processor,
there are only two witnesses to the development of the MiniForth
who can attest that the MiniForth was successfully built.
These two witnesses are myself and Steve Brault.
When Testra accuses me of lying about writing MFX, Testra undermines
my credibility in attesting that the MiniForth was successfully built.
This leaves only Steve Brault to attest to the existence of the MiniForth.

Steve Brault seems to be quite absent in this thread attacking me.
If he were a loyal Testra employee he would have joined in on Tom Hart's
attack on me, to prove his loyalty to Tom Hart (and keep his job).
He hasn't done so. This presumably means that he quit Testra sometime
after I quit Testra, likely for the same reason (low pay, although he was
likely making two or three times what I made). This means that there are
no witnesses remaining to attest that the MiniForth actually existed.
This is why people feel comfortable in saying that the MiniForth
was not a processor but was just an i8032 program --- there is nobody
to contradict this accusation that the MiniForth is a tall tale.

On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 02:01:59 UTC+1, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 11:32:00 PM UTC-7, John Hart wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 1:55:46 PM UTC-7, Ilya Tarasov wrote:
> > > How many Forth CPUs do you plan to design? How many do you need?
> > This will be the last one. ...
> > Our present 16bit system has a USB interface, a local network,
> > a port for wireless, a serial port for
> > miscellaneous I/O, two pwm outputs, four encoder inputs, and outputs
> > to control four axis of motion.
> >
> > The 32bit processor will enable us to increase the number of axis to 16,
> > make the program space
> > 60 times bigger, and execute code ten times faster, without changing the hardware.
> About a month ago I received an email that said this:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> From my experience on using the ispLSI, I doubt that the isp1048
> can implement any kind of CPU.
> I guess that the MiniForth is running on i8032 CPU. Am I right?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is a common belief, that it is impossible to implement a processor
> on the Lattice isp1048 PLD. Typically this assertion is followed by
> the unbeliever explaining that he tried to do so, but that turkey didn't fly.
> Having a job interviewer believe that I'm telling a tall tale means that
> I won't get the job!
>
> I think that Tom Hart and John Hart were fools to refuse to admit
> that I wrote MFX for the MiniForth, saying that I am lying about this
> and that I was never anything more than a maintenance programmer for
> MFX that was written by John Hart and Steve Brault before I showed up.
>
> When people say that the MiniForth was impossible due to the
> Lattice isp1048 PLD being too limited to support a processor,
> there are only two witnesses to the development of the MiniForth
> who can attest that the MiniForth was successfully built.
> These two witnesses are myself and Steve Brault.
> When Testra accuses me of lying about writing MFX, Testra undermines
> my credibility in attesting that the MiniForth was successfully built.
> This leaves only Steve Brault to attest to the existence of the MiniForth..
>
> Steve Brault seems to be quite absent in this thread attacking me.
> If he were a loyal Testra employee he would have joined in on Tom Hart's
> attack on me, to prove his loyalty to Tom Hart (and keep his job).
> He hasn't done so. This presumably means that he quit Testra sometime
> after I quit Testra, likely for the same reason (low pay, although he was
> likely making two or three times what I made). This means that there are
> no witnesses remaining to attest that the MiniForth actually existed.
> This is why people feel comfortable in saying that the MiniForth
> was not a processor but was just an i8032 program --- there is nobody
> to contradict this accusation that the MiniForth is a tall tale.

It is all in the thread I started at the time to clarify what happened,
and many people gave their opinion.
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/wydQr643gX0

If this went through to production, many many customers would own it now.

Please dump your shit elsewhere.

On 2023-09-25 02:52, Jurgen Pitaske wrote (in part):

> It is all in the thread I started at the time to clarify what happened,
> and many people gave their opinion.
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/wydQr643gX0

Or
https://comp.lang.forth.narkive.com/Yhv91mKD/hugh-aguilar-testra-what-really-happened-there
for those who do not use Google Groups.