Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.theremailer.net!frell.theremailer.net!anonymous From: Fritz Wuehler Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at . Identifying the real sender is technically impossible. Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's References: Message-ID: <6c305d75cffa16eacfc3bc7800a30806@msgid.frell.theremailer.net> Precedence: anon Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:08:58 +0200 Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@frell.theremailer.net Organization: Frell Anonymous Remailer Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:10564 "Rod Pemberton" wrote: > "Nomen Nescio" wrote in message > news:74016b72ecef7b82f353de30eda689ea@dizum.com... > > "Rod Pemberton" 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.