Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #10564

Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's

Show all headers | View raw

"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote:

> "Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
> news:74016b72ecef7b82f353de30eda689ea@dizum.com...
> > "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote:
> >
> > > There are probably Forths available for IBM 360.  I just don't recall
> > > seeing them.
> >
> > I asked here on c.l.f. after reading something in an old BYTE but
> > Elizabeth said the source is not extant. I was interested in seeing
> > what they did, not using it because it wouldn't meet my needs, but
> > I like looking at old IBM code.
> 
> BYTE magazine has a website.   IIRC, you could buy a CD with their
> magazines.

What I was saying was I read a BYTE article about Forth on a 370 or 360 so I
asked about Forth for those machines on c.l.f and Elizabeth said the source
doesn't exist as far as she knows. 

> No!  The PL/I variant I programmed in was as powerful as C, but had no
> advantage IMO.  Admittedly, I learned much later that variant was definately
> very different from IBM's or the current PL/I definition.

Maybe you like whichever you learn first. I learned PL/I and didn't want to
learn C after that. Long time since I used it though and now I have no
reason to use it. C looks ugly to me and there are lots of things I don't
like about it. PL/I is safer and cleaner and is a better HLL than C. C is a
better low-level language than PL/I on UNIX, probably.

> There are a number of other PL/something languages out there.  I've got PL/M
> parser by Gary Funck and Kirk Hays, and a PL/M to C converter by Robert
> Ankeney.  I ran across another PL/something the other day searching for
> something else.  You might check the archives of comp.compilers too.  People
> tend to ask for grammars there.  IIRC, John Levine keeps an archive too.
> I'd rather not have to track those two down for you.  However, if needed
> ...

PL/X PL/AS etc. from IBM *may* be the first variations on "real" PL/I but
they are internal IBM only. For a short time they sold the development kit
to vendors so I have used it and it's fine for what it's for but I didn't see
any advantages over assembler. After using it just because the boss said
to use it I stopped using it. Writing a compiler for it would almost be as
hard as writing a PL/I compiler. Many issues that exist with PL/I don't
exist with PL/X, so it would be easier but I don't know how much easier. I
have the feeling Forth would be much much easier and I know I can build
Forth up one word at a time. I don't know that you can do with PL/I.

PL/M is neat as a poor-boy's PL/I but it's also very hard to parse and a
miminal subset PL/M (which in turn is a minimal subset PL/I, almost) that's
good enough for CP/M or DOS system code doesn't have the syntax or semantics
for systems programming on IBM. Of all the languages I have seen, Forth
looks like it would be the easiest to implement and extend. "Just add words
for whatever you want". 

Most of the grammars only help at a high level since they're invariably for
UNIX based parser generators. We don't do that stuff on IBM. All of the
languages are written in assembler. I haven't seen the C or Java stuff but
COBOL, PL/I, assembler, FORTRAN are all written in assembler.

> Unfortunately, that's the best choice.  It's also the only free choice that
> archives more than a few years.

Mwahahaa my personal news server is free. I don't have g00gle's DASD farm
but I keep what I'm interested in and nobody tries to profile me when I use
it.

> Forth as an OS has been done previously.  However, coding an OS is another
> job in and of itself, unless you're targetting a 1980's era 8-bit
> microprocessor.  Forth as an OS on any thing modern will add many, many,
> many, many, many, many, more words.

Yeah but I didn't say that or think that. I'm talking about a systems
programming Forth to be an alternative for writing code for an existing
OS where the current choices are assembler, assembler, or assembler. I think
it would be interesting, possibly useful and not that difficult to
implement, because of the (lack of) syntax. And unique, since nothing else
sits in that niche.

> 
> > > > In other words, what are your goals?
> > >
> > > To code.  Doesn't doing so give you purpose?
> >
> > No, but I see the value in it or I wouldn't be in this business.
> > Ok the money helps but it's not the main thing.
> >
> 
> Oh, I got the impression this was for a personal project.

Yes, it is a personal project. What I meant by "see the value in it" was
an answer to your question. I see the value in coding for coding's sake,
like I believe you do. Otherwise I couldn't do it for a living either. You
have to enjoy and be good at your day job or your life would probably be a
living hell. 

> My brother keeps recommending I start looking at programming those
> portable devices with ARM cpu's ...

I'm sure with your knowledge of C that would be relatively painless for you.

Too much confusion here. You seem to misread most of what I wrote. Hope I
don't do the same with what you write. I guess it's long overdue we should
sit down for a beer/coffee/beverage of choice but not practical. 

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-22 19:16 -0400
  Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 00:38 -0700
    Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-23 00:56 -0700
  Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's For  interpreter. Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-23 12:53 +0100
    Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's For  interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-23 20:44 -0400
      Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's For  interpreter. Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-25 10:30 +0200
        Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's For  interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-25 06:05 -0400
          Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-03-27 03:03 +0200
            Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-26 15:39 -1000
              Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-28 11:18 +0200
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-30 07:04 -0400
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-30 19:24 +0200
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-30 13:00 -0700
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-04 16:09 +0200
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-30 18:06 -0400
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201204.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-04-02 16:39 +0200
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-02 15:37 -0700
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-02 16:59 -0700
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2012-04-03 17:15 -0500
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-04 05:23 -0400
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-04 15:58 +0200
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-05 09:57 -0400
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201204.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-04-05 11:21 +0200
          Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201203.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-03-27 13:08 +0200
      Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's For  interpreter. anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-26 08:58 +0000
  Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. Fanzo <cristianof6@gmail.com> - 2012-03-25 15:32 +0200
  Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-30 18:05 -0400
    Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-02 05:08 -0400

csiph-web