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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #9864 > unrolled thread

In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-05 16:23 -0500
    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-05 12:11 -1000
      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-05 13:44 -1000
        Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-06 11:26 +0000
          Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-03-06 05:42 -0800
            Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-06 14:51 +0000
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-06 10:17 -0600
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-06 16:49 +0000
                  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-06 11:56 -0600
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-06 18:07 +0000
                      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-07 04:14 -0600
                        Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-12 15:56 +0000
                          Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-12 11:23 -0500
                            Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-12 16:26 +0000
                              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-12 12:28 -0500
                  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-06 13:36 -0500
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-06 09:18 -1000
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-06 20:14 -0800
                      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-07 08:22 -0800
                        Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-03-07 10:20 -0800
                          Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-07 11:11 -0800
                        Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-07 19:07 -0800
                          Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-08 10:11 -0800
                          Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-12 09:36 +0000
                      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-12 16:01 +0000
                  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-03-06 13:13 -0800
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-12 16:04 +0000
                  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-12 13:40 -0700
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-03-07 10:15 -0800
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-07 10:33 -0800
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-07 17:16 -1000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-03-12 11:18 +0000
                  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-12 08:01 -1000
            Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 18:59 -0700
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-03-16 20:36 +0100
      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-06 13:33 -0500
        Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-06 09:07 -1000
          Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-06 18:20 -0500
            Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-06 14:07 -1000
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-03-06 16:53 -0800
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-06 19:26 -1000
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-10 19:04 -0500
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-10 18:44 -0800
                  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-11 17:06 -0400
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-11 17:01 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-03-11 12:51 +0000
                  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-11 14:04 -0700
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-11 14:41 -0700
                      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-12 05:16 -0500
                      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-12 08:06 -0700
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-03-11 21:55 +0000
                      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-11 17:17 -0700
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-12 11:00 +0000
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-03-11 17:27 +0000
                  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-11 14:12 -0700
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-03-11 21:48 +0000
                      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-11 14:24 -1000
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-11 17:09 -0700
                  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-11 17:34 -0400
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-11 13:18 -1000
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-11 17:32 -0700
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Josh Grams <josh@qualdan.com> - 2012-03-13 13:18 +0000
                      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-19 03:36 -0400
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 19:37 -0700
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-16 05:31 -0700
                      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-19 03:38 -0400
                        Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-19 11:35 -0700
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-03-16 20:39 +0100
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-12 12:50 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 19:27 -0700
            Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-07 08:16 -0800
            Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-03-15 19:09 -0700
    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-03-05 14:23 -0800
    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-03-05 17:42 -0800
    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-06 09:36 -0800
    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-08 10:41 +0000
    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-08 05:38 -0800
      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-03-09 10:32 -0800
        Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-12 19:26 -0700
        Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-13 04:15 -0400
    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-03-12 01:11 +0100
      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-12 19:41 -0400
        Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-12 16:46 -1000
          Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-12 21:17 -0700
            Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-13 05:01 -0400
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-13 03:06 -0700
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-13 12:32 -0700
                  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-13 14:01 -0700
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-03-14 11:47 -0700
                      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-14 22:13 +0100
                  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-03-14 03:39 -0500
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-03-14 06:54 -1000
                      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-14 16:39 -0700
                      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-03-15 10:49 +0000
                  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-03-14 08:53 -0700
                    Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-14 17:01 +0100
                      Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? George Hubert <georgeahubert@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-14 11:21 -0700
                        Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-03-14 19:25 +0100
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-03-14 16:37 -0700
                  Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-15 04:28 -0400
              Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2012-03-13 16:19 -0400
                Re: In Forth, is it valid or safe to use the value of 'I' after LOOP? "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-03-14 20:13 -0400

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#10027

Op Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:23:33 -0500 schreef Rod Pemberton:

<snip>
> Also, why does fig-Forth require ." in interactive mode, but ANS doesn't?
> 
What do you mean with require?
In ANS Forth, the compiling version is called ." (dot-quote) and the
interpreting version .( (dot-paren).
You really want to read some literature about the behavior of Forth words,
like the difference between ['] and '  and [char] and char.
Don't guess!

-- 
Coos

CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications
http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10069

"Coos Haak" <chforth@hccnet.nl> wrote in message
news:fq81b69yfxxy.110hv3p0ccgf0$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Op Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:23:33 -0500 schreef Rod Pemberton:
> <snip>
> > Also, why does fig-Forth require ." in interactive mode, but ANS
> > doesn't?
> >
> What do you mean with require?

I mean required.  It's part of the fig-Forth and Forth79 specification
for ." (dot-quote).

From the fig-Forth spec:

" ... If executed outside a definition, ." will immediately print the text
until the final ".  ... "

> In ANS Forth, the compiling version is called ." (dot-quote) and the
> interpreting version .( (dot-paren).

For Forth79 and fig-Forth, ." (dot-quote) has compile and interactive
behavior.  .( (dot-paren) is not available in Forth79 or fig-Forth.  Forth83
seems to have introduced .( as a replacement for ." and made ." compile-only
which ANS inherited.

> You really want to read some literature about the behavior of Forth words,
> like the difference between ['] and '  and [char] and char.

My Forth is mostly fig-Forth based.  So, I'm working from that perspective.
Changes and adaptations to the language over time are not always immediately
obvious.  In this case, it's probably part of the "eliminate state-aware
words" issue.

Anyway, I do have the _four_ specifications in front of me: fig-Forth,
Forth79, Forth83, ANS94.  So, what  *other*  literature do you want me to
read exactly?  All of them aren't a part of all standards.

Also, I don't see how understanding the difference between [char] and char
would help me understand that the 'n' character syntax isn't part of [char]
or char, which Ertl said came about formally around 2007.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10076

On 3/12/12 1:41 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "Coos Haak"<chforth@hccnet.nl>  wrote in message
> news:fq81b69yfxxy.110hv3p0ccgf0$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Op Mon, 5 Mar 2012 16:23:33 -0500 schreef Rod Pemberton:
>> <snip>
>>> Also, why does fig-Forth require ." in interactive mode, but ANS
>>> doesn't?
>>>
>> What do you mean with require?
>
> I mean required.  It's part of the fig-Forth and Forth79 specification
> for ." (dot-quote).
>
>  From the fig-Forth spec:
>
> " ... If executed outside a definition, ." will immediately print the text
> until the final ".  ... "
>
>> In ANS Forth, the compiling version is called ." (dot-quote) and the
>> interpreting version .( (dot-paren).
>
> For Forth79 and fig-Forth, ." (dot-quote) has compile and interactive
> behavior.  .( (dot-paren) is not available in Forth79 or fig-Forth.  Forth83
> seems to have introduced .( as a replacement for ." and made ." compile-only
> which ANS inherited.

Yes, the fig version of ." was state-smart. Part of the move against 
state-smartness was making ." compile-only (although some systems still 
have a state-smart version). The word .( (which is IMMEDIATE, and always 
prints its string even when encountered in a definition) had been around 
for a long time, e.g. in polyFORTH and its predecessors, so it was handy 
to provide the interpretive behavior.

>> You really want to read some literature about the behavior of Forth words,
>> like the difference between ['] and '  and [char] and char.
>
> My Forth is mostly fig-Forth based.  So, I'm working from that perspective.
> Changes and adaptations to the language over time are not always immediately
> obvious.  In this case, it's probably part of the "eliminate state-aware
> words" issue.
>
> Anyway, I do have the _four_ specifications in front of me: fig-Forth,
> Forth79, Forth83, ANS94.  So, what  *other*  literature do you want me to
> read exactly?  All of them aren't a part of all standards.

What you're missing is text book/tutorial materials that describe how 
words are used. Standards don't do that -- they concentrate on 
prescribing expected behavior. Also, it might be helpful to read some of 
the appendices to Forth94 that explain how it differs from prior 
standards and why.

> Also, I don't see how understanding the difference between [char] and char
> would help me understand that the 'n' character syntax isn't part of [char]
> or char, which Ertl said came about formally around 2007.

Understanding how [char] and char are used, and writing code with them, 
would help you understand what they're good for, or not, and why ' ' 
won't work.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10078

On Mar 12, 8:46 pm, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
> On 3/12/12 1:41 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > Anyway, I do have the _four_ specifications in front of me: fig-Forth,
> > Forth79, Forth83, ANS94.  So, what  *other*  literature do you want me to
> > read exactly?  All of them aren't a part of all standards.
>
> What you're missing is text book/tutorial materials that describe how
> words are used. Standards don't do that -- they concentrate on
> prescribing expected behavior. Also, it might be helpful to read some of
> the appendices to Forth94 that explain how it differs from prior
> standards and why.
>
> > Also, I don't see how understanding the difference between [char] and char
> > would help me understand that the 'n' character syntax isn't part of [char]
> > or char, which Ertl said came about formally around 2007.
>
> Understanding how [char] and char are used, and writing code with them,
> would help you understand what they're good for, or not, and why ' '
> won't work.

There are more people in the world who have implemented a Forth
system, than who have written a Forth program. When I tell people that
I am a Forth programmer, it is quite common for them to inform me that
they already know *everything* about Forth because they once
implemented a Forth system (usually in C, although Passaniti did it in
Perl). They assume that I am a *mere* application programmer and
should be mighty impressed by the fact that they are a compiler-
writer. They also in the next breath will tell me that implementing a
Forth system is fun and educational, but that Forth has no practical
value for writing applications (meaning that they don't know how to do
it). You are well on your way toward joining that group.

You often ask questions, such as regarding */ and DO and so forth,
that indicate that you have never written even a trivial program in
Forth, and you don't really know anything at all about Forth
programming. Just write a program! Start out with something trivial.
Work your way up to at least medium-sized programs. Trust me --- you
will actually learn the language that way.

There is not much available in Forth tutorials. Most books on Forth
are really light on Forth code. I do provide several example programs
in my novice package that you could study. For the most part though, I
recommend that you just write a program yourself. It is like skiing or
whatever --- reading books and/or watching other people do it, doesn't
help much --- eventually you have to just go for it. You can learn
from books or from other people in *conjunction* with personal
experience, but not as a replacement for personal experience.

If you are not going to write a program in Forth, then I don't have
any interest in helping you learn Forth --- what is the point of
teaching you Forth if you aren't going to write any Forth programs? I
doubt that anybody will help you. Learning Forth just so you can write
a Forth interpreter in C is utter foolishness --- it is a negative
contribution.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10082

"Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fc97b345-ab1c-443c-b811-d5f462a32685@9g2000pbn.googlegroups.com...
>
> [SNIP rant]

This:

> [...] Forth has no practical value for writing applications

and this:

> (meaning that they don't know how to [program Forth]).

have *zero* correlation.  I would posit that the first statement is either
true or false without regards to the second.

> They [...] tell me that [...] that Forth has no practical
> value for writing applications

Well, I see quite a few weaknesses as compared to C.  I've been meaning to
make a list of them.  However, I've only been learning about interpreted
Forth, based mostly on ancient fig-Forth.  Since I've programmed in quite a
few languages, I don't believe the real issue is a personal lack of depth
with Forth.  Now, after implementing about 2/3 of what ANS considers to be
the core words (which haven't been checked for ANS compliance), I still
don't believe the real issue is a personal lack of depth with Forth.  With
most languages, the most advanced and useful features are the entry level
functionalities: control-flow, variables, procedures, arithmetic.  With C
(and other languages), that usually means someone learns C, learns alot more
C to become an "expert," and then once they realize that "expert" C is
overkill just reverts to using just the basics because those basics are far
more than sufficient.  The advanced features of the C language are usually
so specialized to be of little value or rarely used.  As such, I would find
it hard to believe that one must become an expert in Forth in order to not
recognize Forth as not having no practical value.

> You are well on your way toward joining that group.

You responded to Mrs. Rather's reply to me ...  I take it this was for her?
I thought the rant was your typical response to her.

> You often ask questions, such as regarding */ and DO and so forth,
> that indicate that you have never written even a trivial program in
> Forth, and you don't really know anything at all about Forth
> programming. Just write a program! Start out with something trivial.
> Work your way up to at least medium-sized programs. Trust me ---
> you will actually learn the language that way.

Uh, "clearly" (totally sarcastic), that was meant for me ...  As you know,
Mrs. Rather is not a novice, despite your incessant tirades and tantrums
against her.  However, I don't recall ever asking about */ or DO for that
matter ...  Maybe you meant (DO) ?  Or, you did you just mean that I'm
asking about "trivial things" that are covered in your novice or slide-rule
package?

> There is not much available in Forth tutorials. Most books on Forth
> are really light on Forth code. I do provide several example programs
> in my novice package that you could study.

Once I know what the Forth words do, I can program with them just like with
any other language.  I'm not going to attempt to memorize them all, just as
I don't with C.  Those that are useful and of value will be remembered, or
be easily determinable.

> For the most part though, I
> recommend that you just write a program yourself. It is like skiing or
> whatever --- reading books and/or watching other people do it, doesn't
> help much --- eventually you have to just go for it. You can learn
> from books or from other people in *conjunction* with personal
> experience, but not as a replacement for personal experience.

I've programmed in quite a few languages in my lifetime, both low-level,
e.g., assembly, and high-level languages, mostly procedural.  You don't seem
to be remembering - at least a few of - our past conversations ...

> If you are not going to write a program in Forth, then I don't have
> any interest in helping you learn Forth

Did I ask you to help me learn how to program Forth?  No, I didn't ...
AFAIR, I didn't ask you directly or in general nor did I state that I wanted
to learn how to program Forth.  I asked about how a feature of Forth is
implemented.

> --- what is the point of teaching you Forth if you aren't
> going to write any Forth programs?

I only need to know enough Forth to correctly implement Forth words coded in
Forth, which is just about all of them except for the primitives now that my
interpreter parses text correctly.  First, I start with the fig-Forth code
for a basic definition.  Next, I attempt to determine what three ANS Forths
for Windows do.  When they are the same or similar to what fig-Forth would
do, then everything is fine.  Then, if there is some other issue I think is
important, I eventually back test against about eleven other older and old
Forths.

Once sufficient Forth words are coded in Forth, I can take my interpreter in
a couple of directions, such as executing testing frameworks, keeping it
private since it has some useful parsing and compiling features that could
be enhanced and modified perhaps removing most Forth words in the process,
or releasing it to the public whereby other people can code in Forth.

I've checked a handful of Jakeman and Bezemer's crashproof wordset.  If it's
documentation is correct, I'm three words away from being able to execute
Josh Grams small-tester.f.  I've not checked whether I have sufficient words
for John Hayes core test or Dave Williams variations of Hayes core.  Of
course, there are a number of "standard" test programs, e.g., queens.  Then,
of course, there are snippets from Anton Ertl, Julian Noble, John Wavrick,
or perhaps Wil Baden, etc.

> I doubt that anybody will help you.

Well, "taxi driver", you must've forgotten that you've been responding to my
posts for some years now, both here and in other newsgroups ...  Many of
them were positive responses, including many even when I stated the
interpreter was in C.  Go look them up.  Since you've got no problem writing
code no one will use, e.g., your slide-rule application in Forth.  How about
tire wear predictor?  No?  What about a taxi meter application?  Someone
might pay for that ...  So, I guess that means you can't code it.  If you
did and it sold, it would prove that your Forth programming skills were
worth more than the low hourly rate you said you were paid ...

It can be confusing as to whom said what.  You think one guy said this or
that, but when you check it was someone else in the thread ...  And, then
you learn that the "newb" was posting for quite a few years prior to when
you first noticed him/her posting.  Why didn't I remember him/her posting?
E.g., when Bernd Paysan said he didn't like my posts, at first I thought he
must've mistook yours for mine.  Seriously!  No joke.  He seemed really
hostile towards me.  In fact, his hostility was so *unwarranted* and out of
place that he seemed completely "off his rocker" to me.  I wasn't sure where
that came from.  I figured that must've been due to *you* criticizing Mrs.
Rather.  I hadn't posted anything recently.  Then, I realized he may have
caught a few of the "off-topic" copyright related posts, or perhaps one of
the ones where John Passaniti was spouting utter garbage and I responded,
and that he probably failed to recollect the many other posts by me prior to
that for witch he had no issues.  Then, I remembered he is French (or I
believe so) which justifies everything he's said.  Now, if Bernd's attitude
was due to a Passaniti post, that'd be "sad" since you can find numerous
*negative* complaints about JP on c.l.f. going back at least a decade ...
From some of them, he must *thick* ... skinned.

> Learning Forth just so you can write
> a Forth interpreter in C is utter foolishness

I agree.  I'm not trying to learn Forth ...  I think that eliminates the
foolishness part.  The rest I'm doing.  ;-)

Humor aside, I don't need to program in Forth, or any of the other numerous
languages I once programmed.  C does everything I need.  Actually, a very
minimal subset of C does everything I need.

> [...] a Forth interpreter in C is utter foolishness
> --- it is a negative contribution.

As I've told you previously (at least twice), the typical Forth interpreter
in C is implemented very differently.  They typically use a switch()
statement.  Mine is no different than an ITC intepreted Forth in assembly.
I works the same way.  It just uses C to do so.  Forths once were
distributed in assembly.  Do you have something against them?


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10084

As someone who ran blindly into developing a Forth system without
"knowing what it's all about" I can sympathise with Rod.

Folk here advocate learning to program in Forth before writing a Forth
system of their own. On the face of it, that makes perfect sense. It's
a perfectly sensible thing to say. However, I think for a lot of us
here, a lot of the fascination with Forth is actually with how it
works. It's beautiful simplicity. If I had just downloaded GForth and
"struck out" I know for a fact I'd have stopped posting and moved on
years ago. At least 50% of the fascination and affection I have for
Forth stems from the fact that I invested an awful lot of time, brain
cycles, blood, sweat and tears into developing my *own* system. That
re-inforces my involvement and commitment to the language. You can't
get that from just downloading GForth and writing a bubble sort.

So. I think I'm going to disagree. People should develop their own
Forth systems. As a result, they will have a life long appreciation
and affection for the language, even if, like me, they cannot use it
to make a living with.

Those that just download a Free forth will only "kick the tyres"
before going "Wow, this stack shit is like *really* hard, man" then go
play with C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10093

Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> So. I think I'm going to disagree. People should develop their own
> Forth systems. As a result, they will have a life long appreciation
> and affection for the language, even if, like me, they cannot use it
> to make a living with.

I think someone taking that approach should write a metacompiled
implementation completely in Forth except for the lowest level
primitives.  I thought Jonesforth was great when I first saw it, but
after having been around here for a while, I now understand why Forthers
don't think much of it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10095

On Mar 13, 7:32 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> > So. I think I'm going to disagree. People should develop their own
> > Forth systems. As a result, they will have a life long appreciation
> > and affection for the language, even if, like me, they cannot use it
> > to make a living with.
>
> I think someone taking that approach should write a metacompiled
> implementation completely in Forth except for the lowest level
> primitives.  I thought Jonesforth was great when I first saw it, but
> after having been around here for a while, I now understand why Forthers
> don't think much of it.

I know what you mean about Jones Forth. That article was the one
article that I read where I really "got it" - a massive "oooohhhhhh!"
moment as the penny dropped. It's the article that really got me
excited about writing a Forth system of my own. However, it teaches
some bad "tricks" that mean you have to go back and re-work your code
later.

I'm still grateful to the author though!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10115

Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> I know what you mean about Jones Forth. That article was the one
> article that I read where I really "got it" - a massive "oooohhhhhh!"
> moment as the penny dropped. It's the article that really got me
> excited about writing a Forth system of my own. However, it teaches
> some bad "tricks" that mean you have to go back and re-work your code
> later.

Well, I think the situation with Jones Forth is worse than that.  It's
like making a new human starting from raw organic molecules, and
evolving them all the way from microorganisms through primitive insects,
then mammals, etc.  Surely that boostrap process is instructive in its
own way, but if you want to understand human culture and civilization,
it's more important to know about traditional human reproduction
techniques that make new humans starting from fully operational,
pre-existing ones.  The analogy is Forth metacompilation that uses an
assembler written in Forth as one of the last steps, rather than
bootstrapping from an external assembler.

I've been wanting to read the code of cmforth sometime, since it's
apparently written like that, using a very simple metacompilation
approach.  The version I found is near-incomprehensible but I've heard
that a commented version (by Jay Melvin) exists, and I've been wondering
if it's available anywhere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10116

On 14.03.2012 19:47, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Mark Wills<markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk>  writes:
>> I know what you mean about Jones Forth. That article was the one
>> article that I read where I really "got it" - a massive "oooohhhhhh!"
>> moment as the penny dropped. It's the article that really got me
>> excited about writing a Forth system of my own. However, it teaches
>> some bad "tricks" that mean you have to go back and re-work your code
>> later.
>
> Well, I think the situation with Jones Forth is worse than that.  It's
> like making a new human starting from raw organic molecules, and
> evolving them all the way from microorganisms through primitive insects,
> then mammals, etc.  Surely that boostrap process is instructive in its
> own way, but if you want to understand human culture and civilization,
> it's more important to know about traditional human reproduction
> techniques that make new humans starting from fully operational,
> pre-existing ones.  The analogy is Forth metacompilation that uses an
> assembler written in Forth as one of the last steps, rather than
> bootstrapping from an external assembler.
>

Wow !!

The sex and life of Forth !!

(gotta get a furry pc mouse soon...)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10107

Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>> So. I think I'm going to disagree. People should develop their own
>> Forth systems. As a result, they will have a life long appreciation
>> and affection for the language, even if, like me, they cannot use it
>> to make a living with.
> 
> I think someone taking that approach should write a metacompiled
> implementation completely in Forth except for the lowest level
> primitives.

You can write it all in Forth; there's no need for any external tools.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10112

On 3/13/12 10:39 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Paul Rubin<no.email@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>> Mark Wills<markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk>  writes:
>>> So. I think I'm going to disagree. People should develop their own
>>> Forth systems. As a result, they will have a life long appreciation
>>> and affection for the language, even if, like me, they cannot use it
>>> to make a living with.
>>
>> I think someone taking that approach should write a metacompiled
>> implementation completely in Forth except for the lowest level
>> primitives.
>
> You can write it all in Forth; there's no need for any external tools.

Assuming, of course, that your Forth includes an assembler for the 
target system, which most Forths do (written in Forth, of course).

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10119

On Mar 14, 10:54 am, "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/12 10:39 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> > Paul Rubin<no.em...@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
> >> Mark Wills<markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk>  writes:
> >>> So. I think I'm going to disagree. People should develop their own
> >>> Forth systems. As a result, they will have a life long appreciation
> >>> and affection for the language, even if, like me, they cannot use it
> >>> to make a living with.
>
> >> I think someone taking that approach should write a metacompiled
> >> implementation completely in Forth except for the lowest level
> >> primitives.
>
> > You can write it all in Forth; there's no need for any external tools.
>
> Assuming, of course, that your Forth includes an assembler for the
> target system, which most Forths do (written in Forth, of course).
>
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth

Is there an ARM assembler available in Forth, and public domain?

What about the MIPS?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10128

In article <tMqdncY9YajDUP3SnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@supernews.com>,
Elizabeth D. Rather <erather@forth.com> wrote:
>On 3/13/12 10:39 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Paul Rubin<no.email@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>>> Mark Wills<markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk>  writes:
>>>> So. I think I'm going to disagree. People should develop their own
>>>> Forth systems. As a result, they will have a life long appreciation
>>>> and affection for the language, even if, like me, they cannot use it
>>>> to make a living with.
>>>
>>> I think someone taking that approach should write a metacompiled
>>> implementation completely in Forth except for the lowest level
>>> primitives.
>>
>> You can write it all in Forth; there's no need for any external tools.
>
>Assuming, of course, that your Forth includes an assembler for the
>target system, which most Forths do (written in Forth, of course).

I've been looking into ciforth for the MSP430.
Typically this would start with the standard TI-supplied assembler.
I had bad experiences with as well as Renesas as the AVR, even the GNU
assembler.
The MPS430 assembler is sitting somewhere in a 1200 Mbyte package.

Bottomline, even if you go the fig-Forth way of bootstrapping Forth
from an assembler source, you may be better off writing a Forth assembler,
instead of using official assemblers. (Remember using the official
Motorola etc. assembler definition was a boon to portability.
Not any more.)

This is especially true for ciforth that has a generic two-pass
assembler with regular labels and where symbols can be used before
defining them (ciasdis).

Then, I need not define obscure instructions I don't need.
The two hours for an assembler easily beats the time needed to
install and get acquainted with a 1G2 byte package, and you
don't need to sign any agreements.

>
>Cheers,
>Elizabeth

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10110

On Mar 13, 7:32 pm, Paul Rubin <no.em...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>
> I think someone taking that approach should write a metacompiled
> implementation completely in Forth except for the lowest level
> primitives.

Done. Win32Forth, no external tools required.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10111

On 14.03.2012 16:53, Alex McDonald wrote:
> On Mar 13, 7:32 pm, Paul Rubin<no.em...@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>
>>
>> I think someone taking that approach should write a metacompiled
>> implementation completely in Forth except for the lowest level
>> primitives.
>
> Done. Win32Forth, no external tools required.
>

Is it dead or alive? Latest release is 5 years old.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10113

On Mar 14, 4:01 pm, "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote:
> On 14.03.2012 16:53, Alex McDonald wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 7:32 pm, Paul Rubin<no.em...@nospam.invalid>  wrote:
>
> >> I think someone taking that approach should write a metacompiled
> >> implementation completely in Forth except for the lowest level
> >> primitives.
>
> > Done. Win32Forth, no external tools required.
>
> Is it dead or alive? Latest release is 5 years old.

You mean it's 2015 already! I must have had a long sleep last night
-;)

George Hubert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10114

On 14.03.2012 19:21, George Hubert wrote:
> On Mar 14, 4:01 pm, "A. K."<a...@nospam.org>  wrote:
>> On 14.03.2012 16:53, Alex McDonald wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 13, 7:32 pm, Paul Rubin<no.em...@nospam.invalid>    wrote:
>>
>>>> I think someone taking that approach should write a metacompiled
>>>> implementation completely in Forth except for the lowest level
>>>> primitives.
>>
>>> Done. Win32Forth, no external tools required.
>>
>> Is it dead or alive? Latest release is 5 years old.
>
> You mean it's 2015 already! I must have had a long sleep last night
> -;)
>
> George Hubert

I never use developers' snapshots except mine.
I have enough sleepless nights to kill my own bugs.  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10118

On Mar 13, 4:06 am, Mark Wills <markrobertwi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> As someone who ran blindly into developing a Forth system without
> "knowing what it's all about" I can sympathise with Rod.
>
> Folk here advocate learning to program in Forth before writing a Forth
> system of their own. On the face of it, that makes perfect sense. It's
> a perfectly sensible thing to say. However, I think for a lot of us
> here, a lot of the fascination with Forth is actually with how it
> works. It's beautiful simplicity. If I had just downloaded GForth and
> "struck out" I know for a fact I'd have stopped posting and moved on
> years ago. At least 50% of the fascination and affection I have for
> Forth stems from the fact that I invested an awful lot of time, brain
> cycles, blood, sweat and tears into developing my *own* system. That
> re-inforces my involvement and commitment to the language. You can't
> get that from just downloading GForth and writing a bubble sort.
>
> So. I think I'm going to disagree. People should develop their own
> Forth systems. As a result, they will have a life long appreciation
> and affection for the language, even if, like me, they cannot use it
> to make a living with.
>
> Those that just download a Free forth will only "kick the tyres"
> before going "Wow, this stack shit is like *really* hard, man" then go
> play with C.

Implementing a Forth on the TI99-4/A using 1980's technology is
weirdly appropriate! I'm supportive of what you're doing. You have
your retro-computing hobbyist crowd paying actual money for your
system --- it is a positive contribution (to them, at least). You and
your retro users are having fun --- and I don't stop people from
having fun. If you ever upgrade to the MSP430 (which would be useful
to people under the age of 40) I would even volunteer to contribute
code. :-)

By comparison, Rod is writing a Forth interpreter in C for a modern
desktop computer. That just makes the Forth community look foolish.
Rod doesn't have any users and never will --- nobody thinks that this
is a positive contribution --- his goals are:
(1) to prove that C is the "god language" that other languages are
written in
(2) to prove that Forth is just a toy interpreter that isn't capable
of application-programming
(3) to prove that he is an expert at Forth, without having ever
written a Forth program

To a large extent, Rod is just a wanna-be Anton Ertl. His C-based
Forth interpreter was designed with essentially the same goals as
Gforth. I think that Anton Ertl purposely crippled Gforth so that it
would *not* be competitive with SwiftForth, in order to avoid
Elizabeth Rather's wrath (notice how E.R.'s attack poodle Passaniti
never pesters him). SwiftForth doesn't do any optimization, and yet
Gforth succeeds in being *slower* than SwiftForth --- Gforth is a
remarkably crippled system! --- but at least Gforth doesn't have any
major bugs, which is more than can be said about SwiftForth.

I think that the real problem is that SwiftForth is no good, and this
is despite that fact that Forth Inc. owns the name "Forth" which
convinces most people that Forth Inc. epitomizes Forth. People "kick
the tyres" and discover how bad SwiftForth is. That is why everybody
in the world, including rank novices, believe that they can write
their own Forth that is equal or better than SwiftForth. Most of them
are right! The result however is a legion of Forth systems all
abysmally slow. This isn't really helping Forth's reputation in the
real world.

I'm writing Straight Forth now, primarily motivated by frustration at
SwiftForth and Gforth, which are just not up to snuff. I'm not in that
legion mentioned above though. I know what I'm doing! I've done this
before but it was proprietary --- now I'm doing the same but making it
publicly available, and targeting mainstream processors (the PIC24,
PIC32, and ARM, some or all) rather than some weird proprietary Forth
engine that nobody will ever use.

I think that the reason why E.R. strives to convince everybody that my
Forth code "sucks" and that I am a "novice," is because she thinks
that I stole her customer. When Testra needed a cross-compiler for
their MiniForth processor, they contacted Forth Inc. and were quoted
an exorbitant price. Testra hired me instead and I did the job for a
fraction of what E.R. wanted. In E.R.'s mind however, Forth Inc.
*deserves* to have every Forth customer (because she knew Chuck Moore
in the 1970s, yada yada) --- it is only about once every 20 years that
anybody builds a Forth engine and needs a Forth cross-compiler written
from scratch --- and she thinks that Forth Inc. owns this market.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10126

"Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:94fd894e-09bb-4d52-a205-a77b83d72822@j11g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> [...]
> By comparison, Rod is writing a Forth interpreter in C
> for a modern desktop computer.

No, it should work for any computer that can compile ANSI C.  That includes
many non-modern desktop computers, mainframes, minicomputers, etc.  I said
"should" because although I'm good with C, one can't entirely guarantee C
language portability to ancient and obscure platforms which may implement C
differently than most modern platforms.

> That just makes the Forth community look foolish.
>

I don't follow this logic.  If I was supposed to, you failed.  Please try to
succeed again.

> Rod doesn't have any users

So?  Who has users while their program is in development?  Rod doesn't have
anyone paying him either.  That's just as irrelevant.

> and never will ---

You can't predict the future.  I may or may not release it.  I haven't
decided yet.

> nobody thinks that this
> is a positive contribution

Who exactly is "nobody"?  You're the only one who I recall has complained
about my interpreter.  Are you a multiple personality?  How many you got in
there?  To use "nobody" implies it's getting crowded in there.  You had to
take a poll ...

As I've told you before, if I only did what other people thought were good
ideas, I'd never have done much of anything in my life and I'd have only
done things that weren't good ideas.  Most people aren't bright enough to
recognize good ideas or give them.

> --- his goals are:

BZZT!  Wrong answers.

> (1) to prove that C is the "god language" that
> other languages are written in

That's not my goal.  However, I don't have to prove that.  From my
perspective, that's 100% true.  I've cited numerous other languages that
are, both here and in other newsgroups.  Currently, an ITC Forth is being
written in C by me.  So, the "godly" status of C is maintained, so far ...
Of course, if you were really concerned about that, you could attempt to
explain your memory allocation words and try to get me to attempt to
implement them in order to prove me wrong ...

> (2) to prove that Forth is just a toy interpreter
> that isn't capable of application-programming

That's not my goal.  My Forth is fig-Forth based and ITC.  So, it has many
of the limitations of those ancient "technologies".  By saying my Forth
isn't capable of application-programming, you're also saying all old
fig-Forths were incapable ...  There has been almost twenty-five years of
Forth development since then.  If that development hasn't proven Forth is
not just a toy language, nothing will.

> (3) to prove that he is an expert at Forth,
> without having ever written a Forth program

(Lol!)  I'm not interested in programming Forth, although I will do as much
as I have to do to implement my interpreter.  Hopefully, I'll have enough
time to ensure most of it is not totally inelegant.  So far, I only see
weakness in the Forth language.  The "epiphany" of Forth hasn't happened to
me.  I'm really only interested in completing my interpreter to get back to
my other projects: C compilers, x86 assembler, x86 emulator, operating
system, other parsers, etc.  So, the more you harass me and slow me down the
longer I get to pester you with posts you don't like.

> To a large extent, Rod is just a wanna-be Anton Ertl.

Ouch!  Good insult.

But, you already knew that I've made some criticisms of Anton.

> His C-based Forth interpreter was designed with essentially
> the same goals as Gforth.

I seriously doubt that ...  I told you previously, it started as
the backend of a C parser.

> I think that Anton Ertl purposely crippled Gforth so
> that it would *not* be competitive with SwiftForth,

I seriously doubt that too ...  GCC has been in development for
roughly two decades and still can't come close to generating superb
x86 assembly, as compared to other x86 C compilers.  I see that as
a pure failure of the FSF ideology.  It does work on many platforms
though and is open source ...

> [...] in order to avoid Elizabeth Rather's wrath [...]

Why would he care about her wrath exactly?  What power does she
posses that he would he fear?  (strong sarcasm)

> SwiftForth doesn't do any optimization, and yet
> Gforth succeeds in being *slower* than SwiftForth
> --- Gforth is a remarkably crippled system! --- but at
> least Gforth doesn't have any major bugs, which is
> more than can be said about SwiftForth.

Examples?  That's what I need, for real.

> [... irrational ranting ...]
> That is why everybody in the world, including rank
> novices, believe that they can write their own Forth [...]

I've come quite a long way in implementing my interpreter.  I think "rank
novice" should be clarified as to *what* the person is supposedly a novice,
i.e., programming in general, or specifically Forth, etc.

> [...] that is equal or better than SwiftForth.

Mine is just a very basic Forth.  Why does that irk you?  Do you have "I
hate fig-Forth" flags in the back window of your taxi?  Do you sing "Die,
die, die my fig-Forth ..." all day long?  It'd be the same if I coded it in
assembly, with one exception: you can compile ANSI C on other platforms ...

> I'm writing Straight Forth now, primarily motivated by
> frustration at SwiftForth and Gforth, which are just not
> up to snuff. I'm not in that legion mentioned above though.
> I know what I'm doing! I've done this before but it was
> proprietary --- now I'm doing the same but making it
> publicly available, and targeting mainstream processors
> (the PIC24, PIC32, and ARM, some or all) rather than
> some weird proprietary Forth engine that nobody will
> ever use.

Interpreted?

> I think that the reason why E.R. [...]

Get over it.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web