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: Which standard? References: <4f6a47b1$0$6867$e4fe514c@news2.news.xs4all.nl> Message-ID: Precedence: anon Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:02:56 +0100 Mail-To-News-Contact: abuse@frell.theremailer.net Organization: Frell Anonymous Remailer Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:10296 Hans Bezemer wrote: > IMHO Forth-79 was one of the best Forth standards we ever had, because it > was SIMPLE. Forth-83 destroyed a lot of that simplicity and because ANS > Forth is largely driven by vendors who do not want to "break code", a lot > of horrible things still exist in ANS Forth. Amongst others: very > unintuitive flow control, even worse DO..LOOPs, the value of "TRUE", FM/MOD > + SM/MOD, LOCALS, bad C-like I/O design and a few others. Thanks for the insights Hans, very appropos. > But ANS Forth *does* have its merits, like words CELLS and CHARS to abstract > sizes, standardization of floating point, adaptation of addr/count strings > and wordsets in general. Saving your email for later when I understand these issues! > I'd say pick what you want, discard what you don't want, but always leave an > open path to ANS Forth. It's quite nice to have access to a large body of > code instead of inventing it all yourself. Well that body of code probably won't help since I'm thinking about targeting platform(s) that I have not found any Forth targeted to previously and if there was a Forth implementation for them I have not found any source code for it. Implementation if ever is a long time away. Thanks for your post.