stm8ef VS sectorlisp

Thanks, GitHub URL: https://github.com/TG9541/stm8ef

I'm a fan of the STM8 line, nice peripherals, and nice programming model if you are writing any assembler. Much cleaner than 8051. You can do debug with the STLink. There are free toolchains from ST as well as the open source SDCC compiler. There is even a nice Forth. Even if Forth does not interest you that set of pages has a lot of info about various STM8 devices.

This past week I've been on a mission to find the cheapest microcontroller that I can reasonably learn to program. I've gone down the STM8S 001 rabbit hole and found this https://github.com/TG9541/stm8ef/wiki/STM8-eForth-Example-Code

An example: eForth for the STM8 lets you fit an interactive development system including compiler onto an mcu with 8Kb flash and 1kB ram. Very useful for testing and exploratory development in systems that are otherwise far to small to support it.

Eventually you're going to need someone to help explain what on earth is going on here. Fortunately Thomas Göppel the maintainer of STM8 eForth has done that in a very readable explanation of FOR .. NEXT and how to use it.

It's always a multi dimensional spectrum of cost, performance, peripherals, development support, availability, family reach, etc. I personally really like STM8 microcontrollers for their simplicity and very low cost (can be less than 30 cents). There's actually another project that brings Forth to STM8: https://github.com/TG9541/stm8ef It has very good documentation and I recommend anyone to take a look

I used the discussions feature to express my thanks a few days ago. Might be better than opening an issue? https://github.com/TG9541/stm8ef/discussions/386

I'm assuming you are referring to https://github.com/jart/sectorlisp which I gather is an attempt to make a Lisp that fits in a disk boot sector?

I think SIMD was a distraction to our conversation, most code doesn't use it and in the future the length agnostic, flexible vectors; https://github.com/WebAssembly/flexible-vectors/blob/master/... are a better solution. They are a lot like RVV; https://github.com/riscv/riscv-v-spec, research around vector processing is why RISC-V exists in the first place!

I was trying to find the smallest Rust Wasm interpreters I could find, I should have read the source first, I only really use wasmtime, but this one looks very interesting, zero deps, zero unsafe.

16.5kloc of Rust https://github.com/rhysd/wain

The most complete wasm env for small devices is wasm3

20kloc of C https://github.com/wasm3/wasm3

I get what you are saying as to be so small that there isn't a place of bugs to hide.

> “There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult.” CAR Hoare

Even a 100 line program can't be guaranteed to be free of bugs. These programs need embedded tests to ensure that the layer below them is functioning as intended. They cannot and should not run open loop. Speaking of 300+ reimplementations, I am sure that RISC-V has already exceeded that. The smallest readable implementation is like 200 lines of code; https://github.com/BrunoLevy/learn-fpga/blob/master/FemtoRV/...

I don't think Wasm suffers from the base extension issue you bring up. It will get larger, but 1.0 has the right algebraic properties to be useful forever. Wasm does require an environment, for archival purposes that environment should be written in Wasm, with api for instantiating more envs passed into the first env. There are two solutions to the Wasm generating and calling Wasm problem. First would be a trampoline, where one returns Wasm from the first Wasm program which is then re-instantiated by the outer env. The other would be to pass in the api to create new Wasm envs over existing memory buffers.

See, https://copy.sh/v86/

MS-DOS, NES or C64 are useful for archival purposes because they are dead, frozen in time along with a large corpus of software. But there is a ton of complexity in implementing those systems with enough fidelity to run software.

Lua, Typed Assembly; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typed_assembly_language and Sector Lisp; https://github.com/jart/sectorlisp seem to have the right minimalism and compactness for archival purposes. Maybe it is sectorlisp+rv32+wasm.

If there are directions you would like Wasm to go, I really recommend attending the Wasm CG meetings.

https://github.com/WebAssembly/meetings

When it comes to an archival system, I'd like it to be able to run anything from an era, not just specially crafted binaries. I think Wasm meets that goal.

https://gist.github.com/dabeaz/7d8838b54dba5006c58a40fc28da9...

Based on this, the next thing you wrote, and your reference to running a minimal Gentoo: I think you might be a Scheme fan in the making. Scheme is the minimal Lisp. (Okay, that might be sectorlisp which fits in 512 bytes.) It’s hands down my favorite language. While it’s evolved on its own to be more of a superset of Scheme, Racket is my Scheme of choice.

sectorlisp