The Forth Deck mini: a portable Forth computer with a discrete CPU

those are good ideas about antennas

i hadn't actually considered machining it out of an aluminum billet. you might be right that it would be adequately stiff, even if it's much less stiff than glass-fiber-reinforced epoxy. it's much heavier than epoxy, but only slightly heavier than glass, and of course most of its grades are enormously less brittle

oh, i don't know why i didn't answer the stuff about steel and preppers and pumps; maybe it was a brain fart or maybe you edited it in later. i'll try to answer later

so, with respect to steel, i think a steel case in a sweaty pocket will rust rather quickly and comprehensively, even if it's a good steel. often alloying elements that improve steel's mechanical properties make it more prone to rust rather than less so

i'm guessing the drill press was not in working condition after the 20 years of moisture, and i'm assuming you mean something like 'in a basement with relative humidity that reached 100%' or 'with the bottom resting on moist soil' and not 'under dripping water for 20 years' or 'underwater for 20 years'

i don't really have a good way to machine steel anyway, and it's inconveniently heavy. aluminum is amenable to wood rasps and drills

i think probably embedded in silicone or paraffin wax or something would be better than just stored in nitrogen. gottta be careful of static buildup tho

while i sympathize with preppers in some ways (i, too, value autonomy) i think they might be a hard group to market to. a friend of mine occasionally reads survivalist board forum and there's a lot of toxic ultra-right-wing stuff there; i don't want to be lynched for not supporting trump

you can of course do secure encryption on any general-purpose computer unless you're trying to defend against side-channel attacks. i ran pgp on a 286, and we have more efficient algorithms now

long-distance radio is potentially interesting but i agree that it's probably a different piece of hardware; short wavelengths can only go short distances unless they're bouncing off the moon or something, and you need a long antenna to transmit long wavelengths efficiently, although efficiency isn't a significant concern for reception (at transcontinental-capable wavelengths radio noise is a bigger concern than noise generated inside your amplifier). so for long-distance radio you probably need a large, fixed antenna installation rather than a pocket computer

my concern with pneumatic-to-electric power is that it's probably hard to make reliable. but i don't really know

the amazon swindle is known for a month-long battery life, so a week is easily believable. but you're talking about how to solve a different problem

if batteries are an option, e-ink is a super-low-power option because it uses 100 milliwatts or maybe 10 milliwatts at a cellphone size, while a conventional backlit color lcd uses 1000. but to run off solar panels, indoors, my power budget for the whole zorzpad is 1 milliwatt, and the screen can only have a fraction of that

What do you mean by implicitly? Last time I checked, most of button/coin-like batteries (CR2032 and the such) aren't know to be rechargeable, unless you specifically get rechargeable ones.

you don't seem to have really understood my points, because you aren't engaging with them; as it happens, you're also mistaken about coin-sized lithium batteries (though any battery can be slightly recharged)

i'll reply in more detail later but for the moment i just want to clarify that i'm not za3k, although i've been collaborating with him; his priorities for the zorchpad are a bit different from my priorities for the zorzpad

you said:

> I think it's the primary use case like Java Applets and Flash preceded JS as iterations of sorta-portable and low efficiency tools which make up for it with sheer volume of high-familiarity material.

i wasn't able to parse this sentence. could you unpack it a bit?

you said:

> If you'd like, I can provide more specific suggestions.

yes, please! even if our priorities aren't exactly aligned i can surely learn a lot from you

> You may be pleasantly surprised by how many people will show up ...

that would be great! on the other hand, i don't want to count on it; i want it to be a pleasant surprise :)

you write:

> I have a radical idea which might not be a good one:

> 1. A "Full" display of W x H characters (the Sharp display or whatever you replace it with)

> 2. A "Fallback" 1 or 2 line display (2nd line reserved for editor info / UI?)

i've thought about this, especially with respect to e-ink screens. some versions of the barnes & noble nook work this way: there's a small color lcd touchscreen for interactive stuff, and a large black-and-white e-paper display for bulk information display. i thought that a small reflective lcd like cheap scientific calculators use would be enough for a line or two of text, permitting rapid interaction without putting excessive demands on the e-paper's slow and power-hungry refresh

but i think that sharp's memory lcds are so much better than e-paper that there's no real benefit to that approach now

> A single 1-bit editable line is so hard to work with that ed[2] isn't even installed by default on many Linux distros. However, people did once got real work done with it and similar tools.

it's not that command lines are hard to work with; it's that ed's user interface is designed for 110-baud teletypes, where erasing is impossible, and typing out a 10-character error message means forcing the user to wait for an entire second, so it's preferable to just say '?\r\n'. user interfaces designed for more capable hardware, such as an adm-3a connected over a 1200-baud modem, can be immensely easier to use, without abandoning the command-line paradigm. you'll note that ex(1) is installed by default on every linux distribution except alpine (which does, oddly enough, have an ed(1)), and i know a programmer who still uses it as his preferred editor, preferring it even to vi

i've certainly done plenty of real work with tcsh and bash, where the primary user interface paradigm is editing a single line of text to your satisfaction, submitting it for execution, meditating on the results, and then repeating. not to mention the python repl, gdb's command line, octave, units(1), r, pari/gp, sqlite, psql, swi-prolog, guile, ngspice, etc. i like direct-manipulation interfaces a lot, but they're harder to design, and especially hard to design for complex problem-solving activities. it's just that correcting a typo a few words ago isn't really a complex problem-solving activity, so, by my lights, even a relatively dumb direct-manipulation text editor can beat a command-line editor like ex most of the time. especially if their bandwidth to your eyes is measured in megabits per second rather than kilobits per second

you ask what i mean about programmer productivity. consider this python code from https://norvig.com/spell-correct.html:

    def edits1(word):
        "All edits that are one edit away from `word`."
        letters    = 'abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz'
        splits     = [(word[:i], word[i:])    for i in range(len(word) + 1)]
        deletes    = [L + R[1:]               for L, R in splits if R]
        transposes = [L + R[1] + R[0] + R[2:] for L, R in splits if len(R)>1]
        replaces   = [L + c + R[1:]           for L, R in splits if R for c in letters]
        inserts    = [L + c + R               for L, R in splits for c in letters]
        return set(deletes + transposes + replaces + inserts)

here's another part of norvig's program. this part tabulates the case-smashed frequency of every word in its 6-megabyte training set (which presumably consists only of correctly spelled words):

    import re
    from collections import Counter

    def words(text): return re.findall(r'\w+', text.lower())

    WORDS = Counter(words(open('big.txt').read()))

finding the best correction for a word requiring two corrections like 'slowlyyy' takes 70ms, so plausibly it would take 10 seconds or so on the apollo3. (you could maybe do this in the background in a text editor.) (if it were compiled to efficient code, it would probably be closer to 300 milliseconds on the apollo3, because cpython's interpretive overhead is a factor of about 40.) 'disproportionatelyyy' takes 370ms. here's the rest of the correction code:

    def P(word, N=sum(WORDS.values())): 
        "Probability of `word`."
        return WORDS[word] / N

    def correction(word): 
        "Most probable spelling correction for word."
        return max(candidates(word), key=P)

    def candidates(word): 
        "Generate possible spelling corrections for word."
        return (known([word]) or known(edits1(word)) or known(edits2(word)) or [word])

    def known(words): 
        "The subset of `words` that appear in the dictionary of WORDS."
        return set(w for w in words if w in WORDS)

    def edits2(word): 
        "All edits that are two edits away from `word`."
        return (e2 for e1 in edits1(word) for e2 in edits1(e1))

norvig doesn't tell us exactly how long it took him to write the code, but he did it in a single airplane flight, except for some minor bugs which took years to find. more importantly, though, it's very easy code to read, so you can easily understand how it works in order to modify it. and that's the most important factor for programming productivity

here are some things in this code that are more difficult to write and much more difficult to read in uxntal:

- managing more than 64k of data (uxn's memory addresses are 16 bits)

- dynamically allocating lists of things such as the (left, right) tuples in splits

- dynamic memory allocation in general

- string concatenation

- eliminating duplicates from a set of strings

- iterating over the words in a text file

- generating a sequence of outputs from a sequence of inputs with a filtering predicate and a transformation function [f(x, y) for x, y in xys if p(x, y)]

- generating a lazy flat sequence of outputs from a nested loop (return (z for y in f(x) for z in f(y)))

- hash tables

- incrementally eliminating duplicates from a sequence of candidates that turn out to be valid words (set(w for w in words if w in WORDS))

- counting the number of occurrences of each string in a lazy sequence of strings

- floating-point arithmetic (which would be fairly easy to eliminate in this case, but not in many other cases; this deficiency in uxn is especially galling since the apollo3 has fast hardware floating point)

- finding the highest-rated item of a lazy sequence of candidates according to some scoring function

and all of that is on top of the general readability tax imposed by postfix syntax, where even figuring out which arguments are being passed to which subroutine is a mental challenge and a frequent source of bugs

note that these are mostly not deficiencies you can really patch with a library. i didn't mention that the program uses regular expressions, for example, because you can certainly implement regular expressions in uxntal. they're things you probably need to address at the level of language semantics, or virtual machine semantics in the case of the address space problem. and they're not tightly tied to cpython being implemented grossly inefficiently; pypy implements all the necessary semantics, and common lisp and c++ have similar facilities in most cases, though their handling of lazy sequences is a weakness that is particularly important on hardware with limited memory like the apollo3

so that's what i mean when i say that uxn is designed to make easy things hard, rather than making hard things easy

you say:

> the pain point might be intentional nudges away from making things the designer doesn't like

the thing is, i don't really care whether rek and devine think that autocorrecting misspellings is a bad thing to do; i want the computer to be a means of expression for my ideas, indeed for everyone's ideas, not for the ideas of a singular designer. that's the apple walled-garden mindset, and it's anathema to me. and, though i could be wrong about this, i think rek and devine would probably agree

you ask:

> Do you favor a specific structure of hardware, OS code, and user scripts, or whatever ends up offering the best use of power and long-term device durability?

well, i think it's critical for the zorzpad to be able to rebuild its own operating system code, because otherwise it's dependent on external computers to modify its own operating system, and the external computers might have become incompatible or untrustworthy at some point. this poses tricky problems of recovery from bad operating-system updates; probably having multiple redundant microcontrollers in the device is the best option, so that on bricking one of them, i can restore its old configuration using the other

ideally, though, the core code capable of bricking it would be a small tcb, not everything that runs on the system the way it is in ms-dos or templeos. that kind of isolation is usually implemented with an mmu, but the apollo3 doesn't have an mmu, just an mpu. so currently my plan is to implement it with a low-level virtual machine instead; initially an interpreter (my prototype seems to have about 10× interpretive overhead, but probably providing a small number of extra primitives will be adequate to eliminate the worst hotspots from things like updating the display and digital signal processing) but maybe later a simple jit compiler. like most microcontrollers, the apollo3's memory/throughput quotient comes to about a millisecond, rather than the second or so that has been typical for human-interactive computation for the last 60 years, so i suspect i'll be leaning pretty hard to the side of sacrificing speed to reduce memory usage

in addition to providing the protection needed to write experimental code without risk of bricking the machine, the virtual machine can also provide services like virtual memory (including compressed ram), transactional concurrency, and transparent persistence

the nand flash chips i'm using (s34ms01g2) are supposed to consume 27 milliwatts when running, but their power budget at the nominal 1-milliwatt full power is only 300 microwatts. at full speed they're capable of 133 megabytes per second, so at 300 microwatts they might be capable of 1.5 megabytes per second. i can't write to them nearly that fast without wearing them out early, but i can load data from them that fast. in particular that means that the 24 kilobytes of a full screen can be loaded from flash every 16 milliseconds, so you can do 60fps video from flash. reloading all 384k of ram, for example to switch to a completely different workspace, would take a quarter of a second. i feel like this is enough of a quantitative difference from the speed of floppy disks on a commodore 64 or a macintosh 128 that it becomes a qualitative difference, and for applications like the spell corrector example i gave in the other comment, it might be possible to use the flash almost as if it were ram, using the ram as a cache of what's in the flash

but maybe when i gain more experience with the hardware, all that stuff will turn out to have been the wrong approach, and i'll have to go with something else

> Counting mW and decades implies text > GUI.

so, i don't want to be unkind, but i think this is a misconception, or a pair of misconceptions, and i think i know where one of them comes from. i'll try to steelman it before explaining why it's wrong

the first assertion is that counting milliwatts (or actually microwatts in this case) implies that text beats guis. the second assertion is that counting decades implies that text beats guis. i have no idea where the second assertion comes from, so i'll focus on the first

a first plausible justification for the first assertion is that power usage (over leakage) is proportional to the number of toggling bits (or perhaps cubic or quadratic in the number of toggling bits if voltage scaling is an option) and a character generator toggles many fewer bits than all the computation needed to draw a gui, so applications written for a character-cell text terminal can use much less power than gui applications. a second plausible justification is that we have many examples of applications written for character-cell text terminals which use much less computation (and therefore power) than any existing gui alternative

the first justification has two problems: first, it's comparing solutions to the wrong problem, and second, character-cell text terminals aren't even the best solution to that problem; they're the best solution to a significantly different problem which we don't have

the problem that the first justification is trying to solve is the problem of generating a video signal that is useful according to the goals of the application. in that context, the character generator is running all the time as the beam refreshes the phosphors on the crt over and over again. it is true that the character generator can compute the pixels to send to the crt much faster and with less transistors than a cpu can. but in the zorzpad, the display itself is bistable, like the plato gas plasma terminals from the 01960s. there's a flip-flop printed on the glass in amorphous silicon next to each pixel. so we don't have to consume any computational power refreshing a static display (though we do have to reverse the polarity to it a few times a second to prevent gradual damage to the lcd). we only have to send it updated lines of 400 bits. we don't have to generate a continuous video signal

moreover, the fact that a character generator would toggle less bits than the cpu to generate a line of pixels is somewhat irrelevant, because ambiq doesn't sell a character generator chip, and a character generator implemented in conventional cmos from another vendor (or on an fpga) would use orders of magnitude more power than the subthreshold-logic ambiq microcontroller, so we'd have to do the character generation process on the cpu anyway. at that point, and especially considering that the memory-in-pixel lcd display hardware doesn't impose any timing constraints on us the way an ntsc or vga signal does, there's no extra cost to generating those lines in a more flexible way. even without a framebuffer, generating lines of pixels on demand, we could support glyphs positioned with pixel precision rather than character-cell precision, proportional fonts, multiple sizes, polygons, rectangles, stipple patterns, overlaid sprites, and so on

also, though, generating a line of pixels or a vga video signal from a framebuffer requires less bit toggling than generating it from a character generator. with the framebuffer you literally just read sequential words from ram and send them to the display with no processing. what character generators save isn't power; it's memory. with a character generator you can drive a 1280×1024 display with an 8×16 font (256 characters, say, so 4096 bytes of font memory) displaying 64 lines of 160 columns, requiring 10240 bytes of glyph indices, for a total of 14336 bytes of memory. for the traditional 80×25 you only need 2k of modifiable memory and a font rom. and you can do it with strictly sequential memory access (many early character-cell text terminals used delay-line memory or shift-register memory) and meeting the strict hard-real-time guarantees required by the crt hardware being driven

in this case, 400×240 1-bit pixels would require 12000 bytes of framebuffer per screen, and 24k is about 6% of the apollo3's total 384k of sram. in theory the apollo3 needs about 2.1 cycles per 32-bit word to copy data into the framebuffer without rotating it, a number i haven't tested, so 12600 cycles to redraw both screens from scratch; at 48 megahertz that's about 260 microseconds, so it doesn't use much of the chip's available horsepower even at submilliwatt power levels. the display datasheet only guarantees being able to draw two megapixels per second, so redrawing the screen should take 48000 microseconds, although others have reported that it works reliably at three times that speed. hopefully i can use the cpu's built-in spi peripheral to spew out buffered spi data to the screen while the cpu goes back into deep-sleep mode. if i use a character generator implemented in software to avoid having a framebuffer, i have to wake up the cpu periodically to generate new lines of data, using more power, not less. (which might be worth it for the memory savings, we'll see.)

even without enough memory for a framebuffer, though, character generators weren't the only way to generate hard-real-time video signals. the nintendo (nes) only had 2k+256 bytes of vram, for example, and you could do pretty elaborate graphics with that. it used tiles (which are sort of similar to font glyphs and can in fact be used for font glyphs) and sprites (which aren't), plus scrolling registers. some other hardware supported display lists of straight lines instead of or in addition to glyph indices

the second justification is basically a cohort confounder. yes, vs code uses a lot more cpu than vim. but vim was originally written for the amiga, and vs code is written in electron. applications that run in character-cell text terminals do empirically tend to be a lot faster than gui applications, but that's largely because they're older, and so they had to be written with more attention to efficiency. remember that geos provided a standard wimp interface on the commodore 64, with mouse pointers, sliders, pulldown menus, proportional fonts, overlapping windows, and so on, and all that in color without a color framebuffer, adding extra work. it was slow, especially when it had to load data from the floppy drive, but it was usable. the commodore 64 is about 0.02 dhrystone mips (https://netlib.org/performance/html/dhrystone.data.col0.html) and the apollo3 is about 60, so running something like geos on it at 10× the commodore speed ought to use about .3% of its full-speed cpu. or 3% if it's running in a simple bytecode interpreter

so that's why i think submilliwatt computing doesn't require abjuring the gui

does that make sense? have i just totally misunderstood you?

the memory-in-pixel lcd is better than that approach in every way except that it's more expensive, there's no grayscale, and the display panels don't come in large sizes

yeah, i have that problem too :(