Fitting a FORTH in 512 bytes

Re:Fitting a FORTH in 512 bytes by Someone on Friday June 11, 2021 @06:23PM (#27479219)

And what would do that “read data off disk, then write other data back”, if not a program? Even if you use a monitor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_code_monitor) to write a program, that’s still a program.

The only way to avoid that is to hand-punch a tape or something like that (with lots of practice and patience, it may be possible to program a small PROM or write an early floppy by hand)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fitting a FORTH in 512 bytes by ronsor on Friday June 11, 2021 @07:43PM (#27479871)

I'm reminded of the manually-inputted Microsoft BASIC bootloader for the ALTAIR 8800: https://just8bits.blogspot.com/2017/03/doing-it-in-less-than...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fitting a FORTH in 512 bytes by SAI_Peregrinus on Friday June 11, 2021 @10:14PM (#27480809)

I've compiled some simple C (microcontroller blinky) by hand. Then assembled and linked the output, and written the machine code into a HEX (Intel format) file. Then tested it on the micro. It's a rather fun exercise (Type 2 fun).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fitting a FORTH in 512 bytes by Something1234 on Friday June 11, 2021 @11:26PM (#27481236)

What is type 2 fun?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fitting a FORTH in 512 bytes by kwdc on Saturday June 12, 2021 @12:34AM (#27481561)

Fun with extra twists and turns you weren't expecting. Usually quite an adventure, some unintended learning and growth. Hopefully a story worth telling.

As opposed to the obvious doing an activity for fun.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Fitting a FORTH in 512 bytes by bear8642 on Saturday June 12, 2021 @01:06AM (#27481697)

Fun after the fact.

type 1 is fun at the time

[ Parent | on HN ]