Re: what kind of non microconroller app are done in forth?

On Apr 19, 2:31 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> That's where Forth already has a foothold. But I haven't heard that
> there's any big economy of scale there,

There's no need for any *additional* economy of scale, if you can get
network economies from the system. Get something that an SD card can
plug into, and load new applications, and there's an op****tunity for
new applications to spread across the web.

> If you develop an "OS" for a particular board with a particular
> processor etc, aren't there thousands of other boards that do
> somewhat similar things or very different things in the same
> price range?

I don't understand the question. It sounds like you are asking
whether Contiki will fail to spread to new applications on new
configurations of hardware because there are thousands of
possible configurations similar to the hardware it was first
implemented on.

> Oh. Too bad. But if you have a Forth OS and you implement the popular
> languages for it, then you get to im****t apps.

Yes, but if there's no mutual benefit, there's more likelihood
that it'll stall/

> > Better to target a language with a smaller language community, where
> > there is more likely to be an actual op****tunity to have an actual
> > network economy from having a "Language-in-Forth" implementation. I
> > have long used Lua as an example ... another example would be Cobra:
> >http://cobra-language.com/

> Same problems, though. If the language doesn't have much of a code base,
> what good does it do to ****t it?

If you have a new OS, what good does it do to ****t a language
with the primary appeal of being able to compile applications
that will not run because they were written for a different OS?

> And how much good does it do them to ****t their language to
> marginal systems?

This is posing a question as if it is a logical question
when the question is an empirical question. The answer is
not going to be found by armchair speculation, but by
exploration.

> Actually I guess you could get a little momentum that way.
> But don't the big wins usually come from hooking up with
> winners?

No, of course not. The big wins come from hooking up with
the marginal player that then *becomes* a winner. If its
already clearly becoming a winner, that's when everyone is
trying to jump on the bandwagon.