SMS2 and STELLA

[Tinyfpga]

pjw posted the following message under the topic Knoware.

Nice read, thanks. In fact I skimmed through many of the ql-user 2017 emails. It seems we had a
lot more interesting conversations back then.. or is this just another symptom of early-onset
nostalgitis? And where did so many of those people of 2017 go..?

Anyway, could any further discussion on SMS2 and Stella please move to a different or
new topic heading? Might see y'all there!

I have decided to start this new topic acutely aware that this is a QL forum.
It is a topic that interests me but given that Tony Tebby has never found an enthusiastic
audience amongst QL users for his ideas, I am not expecting a favourable response.

Tony Tebby's attempt to change the face of computing has always fascinated me and
SMS2 and Stella are the practical expressions of his deliberations. SMS2 could be thought of
as a precursor to Stella (ie. Stella came from the SMS2 project not from SMSQE)

I use SMSQE on a regular basis because, through the unstinting efforts of a number
QL enthusiasts, it is currently by far the most practical form SMS, but as TT wrote some time ago:-
" lt (SMSQ) was purely retrospective and did not further the Domesdos style OS principles."

It is the furthering of TTs OS principles that interest me and not retrospective expressions of
his work.

I have on occasions posted, on this forum, documents found in the public domain, in which TT
attempts to explain, and in various ways, what he means by Domesdos OS principles. I will not be
re-posting them here. My various posts on SMS2 and Stella are scattered all over this forum.
The most recent can be seen under the topic Knoware


I will begin with copies of recent posts under the topic Knoware to give it some context.

1 ---------------
As posted earlier, Stella can be considered as TT's great work. It's a shame that it is not expressed in an accessible and repeatable form (such as in FPGA)

I have just found the following post by Tony Tebby in a QL mail archive dated 21st Mar 2017.

TT.1.zip

(1.44 KiB) Downloaded 63 times

Someone called Dave Park asks him if Stella is a dead project. TT replies with four negatives. In my very limited opinion all four would be negated, were Stella to be expressed in FPGA as an experimenter's computing platform.

2 ---------------
Just as interesting as TT's contribution, is Peter Graf's reply.
Arnaud Nazarian's post interested me as well, although I could not really understand it. I think
that he and TT tried to interest a pre-Iphone manufacture in Stella. Palm computing?

TT replies 1.zip

(2.18 KiB) Downloaded 61 times

In my view Peter Graf is correct.

During the QL mail archive discussion Norman Dunbar pointed to the following document that might
be of interest to some:-

TT2. Stella.zip

(17 KiB) Downloaded 61 times

One could consider the following:- SMS2 was compromised (in my opinion) by the need to make
it look like something from the past. There have also been a number of attempts to make SMSQE look
like a conventional desktop system.
If QLers have an overwhelming desire to seek comfort in familiarity, can you imagine what Stella
would look like if it had been funded by a conventional entity.

Stella currently has no user interface although one was proposed. As I have suggested
recently the last thing it should look like is something from the past.

3 ---------------
Postby NormanDunbar » Sun Feb 13, 2022 3:46 pm
I remember reading, years ago, an article by Tony Tebby about Stella and I was very interested in trying it out. Sadly, that was the last I ever heard of it and as far as I was/am aware it was only ever a "thought experiment" on Tony's part. I assumed that he, at least, would have had a copy which he was developing, but again, never heard a dicky bird.

It's interesting to hear that you have a 25 years old version of the system, how did you come to obtain this I wonder? Are you perhaps Tony's long lost only child? (I made that up, I have no idea if Tony had any children, lost or otherwise!)
------------------------

What a delight that would be. TT's genius long lost only son.

TT's most recent post to QLers is dated 21 March 2017. How time flies. It indicates that TT had some thoughts on the matter, and that he considered Stella to be still a valid technology. I found Peter Graf's response very encouraging

Stella was not a thought experiment. it exists in a binary (if that is the correct term) format, capable of installation in an Atari ST.
It is well documented, both in source code format and in descriptive format. TT must have copies of his work and I feel he must
have given copies to others. It seems unlikely that he would have thrown it all away.

I would love to see Stella in an easy to use form like SMS2 (as in, easy to use) and in FPGA. Perhaps a Peter Graf creation.

If TT really has abandoned interest in the 68000 assembler version I see no reason, given time, why it could not be completed by others.

Even in QPC or SMSQmulator Stella would be interesting.

[Derek_Stewart]

Hi,

SMS2 is very primitive version of SMSQ/E, without a SuperBASIC interpreter.

SMSQ/E includes the Extended Environment (aka Pointer Interface) and is a much better operating system than SMS2.

I had SMS2 running on a an Atari STE 4Mb with adapted VGA monitor, so, it could only handle 800x600 2 colours. OK, an Atari TT030 could handle colour VGA, but this needed extra hardware, i.e. QVME - 4 Colours.

The SMS2 CLI was a pain to use, but and biased towards the Atari GUI style system, all the QL programmes like QRAM, QPAC2, QD, Qliberator, Turbo Compiler ... and other good software all run on SMS2 and SMSQ, SMSQ/E which shows it is the same operating system.

SMSQ/E only started to get good, till Tony Tebby released control of the operating system software code, up till then it was closed source and a rather black art.

I have rad all about Stella as an operating system, but this seems to be all talk, why not release the Stella source code and we can see what is going on, also bear i mind, this is now over 30 years old.

I think we need more applications rather other operating systems.

[Tinyfpga]

I agree with your general sentiment, and as I wrote in my opening post, SMSQE is currently by far the most practical form
of TT's OSs, but I also have a very strong interest in more advanced, expressions of TT's OS principles.

My problem with SMSQE is that it is not a path to that end because it is bound by the past.

The other problem with SMSQE is that it is of very limited interest to computing enthusiasts outside
the QL scene. It is almost impossible to convince people that it is a lot more than a QDOS clone.
Left in this state I can only speculate that its use will diminish over time.

from pjw Knoware» Sun Feb 13, 2022 1:56 pm And where did so many of those people of 2017 go..?

I am intrigued by peoples' need for a BASIC interpreter. I have yet to find a use for it, so I asked for an
example of something I can't do with QD-Qlib-SBASIC. So far only pjw has responded.
He wrote that issuing commands is something he does, but I don't what they are. The other thing he does
is run Turbo but, it is not a program I use.

So:-
Other than running a BOOT program, issuing commands (what ever that is) or running Turbo. What
do you use the SMSQE interpreter for?

SMS2 has the extended environment and the DV3 drivers built in. (It's where SMSQE got them from)

To get SMSQE into a usable state I created an 80 line BOOT program using SBASIC instructions. I have
compared a selection of the instructions used in my SMS2 STARTUP file, with my SMSQE BOOT program.
I can't say I find the SBASIC instructions easier to understand than the CLI instructions. They seem quite
similar to me.

SMS2: ----- SMSQE:
rext menu ----- LRESPR win1_rext_menu
rext qpac2 ----- LRESPR win1_rext_qpac2
rext basic ----- LRESPR win1_rext_basic
rext qptr ----- LRESPR win1_rext_qptr
rext qlib_run ----- LRESPR win1_qlib_sys

hot_res t calendar ----- ERT HOT_RES1 ("d",win1_ex_calendar)
hot_exec z button_sleep ----- ERT HOT_THING ("z",button_sleep)
BT_sleep exec ----- BT_WAKE "exec"

As far as Stella is concerned, it is as you say very old and might be considered
completely irrelevant, but if you read the fairly recent (2017) posts (see my first post) from TT
and Peter Graf, you will find that both of them still rate it as a valid technology.
Releasing the source code and documentation would be a good idea but the circumstances would have
to be conducive to a successful outcome.

Currently my only use for SMSQE (and SMS2) is writing programs. I enjoy doing this but I can't
really say that the resulting programs have an application. If one wants to use application programs
it is probably better to buy a modern computer.

I have been trying to work out how to control things like motors actuators and sensors via SMSQE but
as I know very little on the subject I am not getting very far.

[pjw]

So:-
1. I don't issue commands, mostly because I don't know what they are.

For example, things like COPY 'win1_test_test_bas', 'win2_test_abc_bas', cant be done with most file managers, so best done as a command

2. Ad hoc loading of toolkits is just as easy post SMS2 startup.

But SBASIC is also the mother of all daughter SBASICs, so sometimes you just want to test a toolkit locally without destroying your setup: Then you can just start a daughter SBASIC, LRESPR your toolkit there without scribbling over your main setup - even if commands have the same names - try it out, and QUIT. No harm done.

3. SMS2 has a default console window that performs the same task.
4. Developing and testing tiny and not so tiny bits and bobs is all I currently do with the Qlib-QD thing.
I find doing this with the interpreter so painful that I don't do it.

Sure, that works too. But theres nothing like being able to break into your program and investigate variable values etc. This cant easily be done via the QD/SBAS Thing; the variables are all gone when your code snippet returns. With the SBASIC interpreter you have all the well-known advantages of an interactive interpreter AND a (semi-)compiled language, which can be further refined. Best of all worlds!

5. I don't use Turbo and I don't know what Xref is. <>

Turbo has certain advantages in some cases: The resulting code is usually much faster, so could be vital for some applications. I mainly use it, and Xref - an S*BASIC program analyser from DP - to analyse and debug my code. Turbo has a much stricter structure parser than SBASIC, and will often uncover obscure problems I have failed to find by other means. Ditto Xref.
Anything more ambitious than a small utility, and you need all the help you can get! The interpreter, Turbo, Xref, and others, are all part of an essential toolbox.

[NormanDunbar]

The other problem with SMSQE is that it is of very limited interest to computing enthusiasts outside
the QL scene. It is almost impossible to convince people that it is a lot more than a QDOS clone.
Left in this state I can only speculate that its use will diminish over time.

The user base of QL enthusiasts has always been small. The QL died a death at launch pretty much, because it wasn't ready - the infamous dongle - plus the press pretty much slagged it off after the release event. The only reasons I ever got one were:

* They came down in price from £600 to £200;
* I was a Sinclair "groupie" and loved his products;
* I had my own credit card;
* I had a student grant!

And the first one I had was a JM, and one of the microdrives didn't work after a week or two. I took it back and it was exchanged for a JS. That worked perfectly and as far as I know, is still working fine -- ask CHR$ as he has it now. It needs/needed a new keyboard membrane though.

I am intrigued by peoples' need for a BASIC interpreter. I have yet to find a use for it, so I asked for an
example of something I can't do with QD-Qlib-SBASIC. So far only pjw has responded.
He wrote that issuing commands is something he does, but I don't what they are. The other thing he does
is run Turbo but, it is not a program I use.

So:-
Other than running a BOOT program, issuing commands (what ever that is) or running Turbo. What
do you use the SMSQE interpreter for?

The SuperBASIC interpreter is just what 1980's computers, Jupiter Ace excepted, all came with. Very few, booted into "nothing" and expected you to load something from that point onwards, the BBC being an exception, I think, with its myriad of boot ROMs, but most BBCs I ever saw booted to Basic as well.

Why have a command line interpreter to enter commands and a separate Basic interpreter when you can have both, in the same package.

What are commands? Well, you have mentioned your favoured CLI in SMS2. What do you type there I wonder, if not commands -- it's a command line interpreter after all. So, it's the same thing as the SuperBASIC one, except you don;t have any of the SuperBASIC commands, whereas we do!

Commands are things line "LOAD", "LRUN", "SAVE", "SEXEC", "EXEC", "NEW" and so on, things that wouldn't normally be in a Basic file, except perhaps, a boot file. Turbo's command to analyse and compile a SuperBASIC programs, loaded in memory, is "CHARGE". There are other commands too, "PRINT", "CLS", "INK", "PAPER", ... -- all the various SuperBASIC procedures and functions are available in the CLI -- some more use than others though, admittedly.

On my QPC system, I start it up and:

* my BOOT file autoruns from win1_ to load all the toolkits and extensions I use frequently - Turbo runtimes, QLIB runtimes, DJToolkit, QMON and JMON extensions, QPAC2. This is after the OS has loaded and brought up the "Extended Environment" -- PE/WMAN/HotKey system/Thing system etc.
* I am then sitting at a command prompt from which I can do anything I wish to do!

Cheers,
Norm.

[Tinyfpga]

pjw replies to my questions.

I have downloaded the entire Turbo stuff in the past but completely failed to install it.
I don't know how to start a daughter BASIC but will try out the scenario you describe once I know how.

As you say "this can't easily be done via the QD/SBAS Thing; the variables are all gone when your code snippet returns".

What I do, to analyse faulty code, is to add break points, print variables to a separate test
channel,and then single step through my code,watch the variables do their thing whilst actively editing the source code.
I don't know how I can do this in the interpreter but I will give it a go. I really do not like using line numbers.

None of this helps to uncover certain logic errors which are often the most common errors I make.

I use the file menu to manipulate my files. What is wrong with that?

It's amazing how conversations rapidly twang off topic but in a subject as complex as computing it is inevitable. I have no idea how one would create a forum that could automatically deal with this problem

[Tinyfpga]

Norm posts What are commands? Well, you have mentioned your favoured CLI in SMS2. What do you type there I wonder, if not commands -- it's a command line interpreter after all. So, it's the same thing as the SuperBASIC one, except you don;t have any of the SuperBASIC commands, whereas we do!

I don't really have a favoured CLI in SMS2 because there is only one, so I have to live with it.

Interestingly on my SMS2 setup the CLI gives me access to all the SBASIC instructions, functions
procedures, executable entities and Things. They can also be turned into Buttons and Hotkeys.

As mentioned in my previous post I have developed a very simple way of single stepping through my faulty code whilst observing changes in various variables. I find this easy in my QD-lib thing.

As I have posted a few times I have yet to find a use for the interpreter. It could be because I learned SBASIC programming without one.

[XorA]

I have decided to start this new topic acutely aware that this is a QL forum.
It is a topic that interests me but given that Tony Tebby has never found an enthusiastic
audience amongst QL users for his ideas, I am not expecting a favourable response.

Sometimes in a community this is because those ideas are wrong!

[tofro]

I have decided to start this new topic acutely aware that this is a QL forum.
It is a topic that interests me but given that Tony Tebby has never found an enthusiastic
audience amongst QL users for his ideas, I am not expecting a favourable response.

Sometimes in a community this is because those ideas are wrong!

Blasphemic! Lapidate...

[XorA]

I have decided to start this new topic acutely aware that this is a QL forum.
It is a topic that interests me but given that Tony Tebby has never found an enthusiastic
audience amongst QL users for his ideas, I am not expecting a favourable response.

Sometimes in a community this is because those ideas are wrong!

Blasphemic! Lapidate...

I had to look the meaning of that up

Which luckilly I can do unlike information on Stella