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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #133761 > unrolled thread

docker, what could be the advantage?

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

Contents

  docker, what could be the advantage? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-06-16 14:19 +0200
    Re: docker, what could be the advantage? mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2025-06-16 16:18 +0000
      Re: docker, what could be the advantage? minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2025-06-16 16:59 +0000
        Re: docker, what could be the advantage? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-06-16 19:27 +0200
          Re: docker, what could be the advantage? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2025-06-16 17:40 +0000
            Re: docker, what could be the advantage? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-06-18 19:55 +0200
          Re: docker, what could be the advantage? mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2025-06-16 18:00 +0000
            Re: docker, what could be the advantage? zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-16 20:48 +0000
              Re: docker, what could be the advantage? mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2025-06-18 17:00 +0000
                Re: docker, what could be the advantage? zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-18 19:28 +0000
                  Re: docker, what could be the advantage? mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2025-06-18 21:04 +0000
                    Re: docker, what could be the advantage? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2025-06-19 12:41 +1000
                Re: docker, what could be the advantage? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2025-06-19 12:36 +1000
                  Re: docker, what could be the advantage? mhx@iae.nl (mhx) - 2025-06-19 07:19 +0000
                    Re: docker, what could be the advantage? dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> - 2025-06-20 02:02 +1000
    Re: docker, what could be the advantage? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-06-18 13:25 +0200
    Re: docker, what could be the advantage? zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-20 10:46 +0000
      Re: docker, what could be the advantage? minforth@gmx.net (minforth) - 2025-06-20 12:05 +0000
      Re: docker, what could be the advantage? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-06-20 14:45 +0200
        Re: docker, what could be the advantage? zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-20 13:09 +0000
          Re: docker, what could be the advantage? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl - 2025-06-20 20:53 +0200
            Re: docker, what could be the advantage? zbigniew2011@gmail.com (LIT) - 2025-06-20 19:21 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#133761 — docker, what could be the advantage?

I came upon
https://github.com/uho/docker-forth

with a plethora of Forths.
[If you are interested in ciforth, you could have the latest
release from github..ciforth ]

docker tells you not what it is supposed to do, it list a litany
of advantages. You can cash in ... only if you are willing to install
the docker gui and experiment with it.

I think of an application xfig. You pass an image and xfig turns it
in a jigsaw puzzle. I can imagine that it is an advatage that it works
the same on apple or ms. I'm quite sure that you have totally different
version too.

What can be the advantage of having that for Forths systems?
The only remarkable about ciforth was that the versions are
years behind.

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#133762

On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:19:51 +0000, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

> I came upon
> https://github.com/uho/docker-forth
>
> with a plethora of Forths.
> [If you are interested in ciforth, you could have the latest
> release from github..ciforth ]
>
> docker tells you not what it is supposed to do, it list a litany
> of advantages. You can cash in ... only if you are willing to install
> the docker gui and experiment with it.
>
> I think of an application xfig. You pass an image and xfig turns it
> in a jigsaw puzzle. I can imagine that it is an advatage that it works
> the same on apple or ms. I'm quite sure that you have totally different
> version too.
>
> What can be the advantage of having that for Forths systems?
> The only remarkable about ciforth was that the versions are
> years behind.

Given it's installed, configured correctly, and one remembers how to use
the Docker interface, it is possible to immediately load and run a
SwiftForth, VFX, or iForth image out of the box. It does not matter
what the version of the OS is, as that is one of the layers in the
docker.

IIRC, my colleagues were constantly busy rebuilding Dockers because
the Python libraries and OS bugfixes could/were not allowed to be
ignored :-)

-marcel

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

#133763

We should be fundamentally grateful to Ulrich Hoffman
for compiling this collection and publishing it on github.
Even if I personally don't use Docker, I am happy about
Ulrich's commitment.

--

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

#133764

In article <5752fed4af5334e8399df6dc61006e1f@www.novabbs.com>,
minforth <minforth@gmx.net> wrote:
>We should be fundamentally grateful to Ulrich Hoffman
>for compiling this collection and publishing it on github.
>Even if I personally don't use Docker, I am happy about
>Ulrich's commitment.

I respect Ullrich, so that make me ask the question what is the
use of it.

Sketch me a use case.

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.

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

#133765

albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:
>Sketch me a use case.

1) You want to check whether a program runs on a number of Forths.

2) You want to check which of several Forth systems have a certain
feature.

3) You want to compare how different Forth systems perform on the same
program.  And maybe you want to do that on several machines.

One problem with use case 3 is that on an Ivy Bridge I have seen
Gforth's FFT benchmark run significantly (IIRC 3x) slower in docker or
snap (which is based on the same technology) than when running it as a
normal process.  We have not seen this on newer processors, but the
fact that I am worried because I don't understand where this slowdown
comes from; from what I know about the technology behind docker and
snap, I might expect slowdowns for system-call-heavy benchmarks, but
fft is not one of those.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2023 proceedings: http://www.euroforth.org/ef23/papers/
EuroForth 2024 proceedings: http://www.euroforth.org/ef24/papers/

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

#133771

In article <2025Jun16.194019@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:
>>Sketch me a use case.
>
>1) You want to check whether a program runs on a number of Forths.

Useful in academic settings.

No wonder I had a blind spot.
In my experience the OS is given, in exceptional case you have a
say in the compiler, then the program is created to work using the
compiler.

>- anton

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.

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

#133766

On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 17:27:08 +0000, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
>
> I respect Ullrich, so that make me ask the question what is the
> use of it.
>
> Sketch me a use case.


It gives two in the README ?

A very convenient collection for somebody wanting to check
compatibility of, or benchmark, Forth code. Archeologists
will appreciate it too, two thousand years in the future.

-marcel

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

#133767

> A very convenient collection for somebody wanting to check
> compatibility of, or benchmark, Forth code.

I see its use rather limited - and a whole thing
rather as a kind of novelty - because IMHO compatibility
of Forth code isn't as important as its efficiency.
If the code can be made more efficient by any
non-standard approach, then 'goodbye compatibility',
and the user of some other Forth system if free
to modify the code on his own. Why I see this such
way? Because Forth can be seen as kind of 'opposite
pole' to languages 'carved in stone', just like C
and its derivatives.

But of course if for anyone - for any reasons
I don't know - that compatibility is important,
such docker may be useful for that someone.

--

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

#133770

On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:48:37 +0000, LIT wrote:

> I see its use rather limited - and a whole thing
> rather as a kind of novelty - because IMHO compatibility
> of Forth code isn't as important as its efficiency.
> If the code can be made more efficient by any
> non-standard approach, then 'goodbye compatibility',
> and the user of some other Forth system if free
> to modify the code on his own.

Actually, your view is quite non-standard. I don't know
any Forth users that complain that their system is
inefficient, even if it is token-threaded Fig-Forth on
a ZX80 with cassette-tape. (But then I also do not know
many (>3) Forth users that demand compatibility.)

When I was just starting to use Forth, I found
many magazine articles that discussed squeezing out
the odd cycle by modifying the inner interpreter, and
remember being mighty impressed by that.
However, after some spying around in the sources for
a while I started to wonder if they couldn't see the
forest for the trees.

My current opinion is that these authors are/were
neither interested in efficiency nor in compatibility.

-marcel

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

#133772

>> I see its use rather limited - and a whole thing
>> rather as a kind of novelty - because IMHO compatibility
>> of Forth code isn't as important as its efficiency.
>> If the code can be made more efficient by any
>> non-standard approach, then 'goodbye compatibility',
>> and the user of some other Forth system if free
>> to modify the code on his own.
>
> Actually, your view is quite non-standard. I don't know
> any Forth users that complain that their system is
> inefficient, even if it is token-threaded Fig-Forth on
> a ZX80 with cassette-tape. (But then I also do not know
> many (>3) Forth users that demand compatibility.)

Non-complaining (or no trace of such complaining)
isn't any rationale for assumption "everyone are
quite pleased with what they presently use (amd
how they use that)". Optimalization wouldn't had
any sense whatsoever if everyone were that pleased.

I'm recently since longer time tinkering with that
fig-Forth I already mentioned, I learned its
limits, I'm pretty aware it's not particularly fast
"per se" and I don't complain. :) Just from time
to time trying some less standard approach.

> When I was just starting to use Forth, I found
> many magazine articles that discussed squeezing out
> the odd cycle by modifying the inner interpreter, and
> remember being mighty impressed by that.
> However, after some spying around in the sources for
> a while I started to wonder if they couldn't see the
> forest for the trees.
>
> My current opinion is that these authors are/were
> neither interested in efficiency nor in compatibility.

Could you, please, give any example of such
article (if it's available on any WWW page)?

--

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

#133773

On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 19:28:03 +0000, LIT wrote:

[..]
>> When I was just starting to use Forth, I found
>> many magazine articles that discussed squeezing out
>> the odd cycle by modifying the inner interpreter, and
>> remember being mighty impressed by that.
>> However, after some spying around in the sources for
>> a while I started to wonder if they couldn't see the
>> forest for the trees.
[..]
> Could you, please, give any example of such
> article (if it's available on any WWW page)?

Start here, Brian Woodroffe's 6809 'Forth computer' series:
https://archive.org/details/Forth-Computer-Wireless-World-1983/mode/2up

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

#133775

On 19/06/2025 7:04 am, mhx wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 19:28:03 +0000, LIT wrote:
> 
> [..]
>>> When I was just starting to use Forth, I found
>>> many magazine articles that discussed squeezing out
>>> the odd cycle by modifying the inner interpreter, and
>>> remember being mighty impressed by that.
>>> However, after some spying around in the sources for
>>> a while I started to wonder if they couldn't see the
>>> forest for the trees.
> [..]
>> Could you, please, give any example of such
>> article (if it's available on any WWW page)?
> 
> Start here, Brian Woodroffe's 6809 'Forth computer' series:
> https://archive.org/details/Forth-Computer-Wireless-World-1983/mode/2up

Clearly an engineer with no shortage of time or money ;-)

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

#133774

On 19/06/2025 3:00 am, mhx wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:48:37 +0000, LIT wrote:
> 
>> I see its use rather limited - and a whole thing
>> rather as a kind of novelty - because IMHO compatibility
>> of Forth code isn't as important as its efficiency.
>> If the code can be made more efficient by any
>> non-standard approach, then 'goodbye compatibility',
>> and the user of some other Forth system if free
>> to modify the code on his own.
> 
> Actually, your view is quite non-standard. I don't know
> any Forth users that complain that their system is
> inefficient, even if it is token-threaded Fig-Forth on
> a ZX80 with cassette-tape. (But then I also do not know
> many (>3) Forth users that demand compatibility.)
> 
> When I was just starting to use Forth, I found
> many magazine articles that discussed squeezing out
> the odd cycle by modifying the inner interpreter, and
> remember being mighty impressed by that.
> However, after some spying around in the sources for
> a while I started to wonder if they couldn't see the
> forest for the trees.
> 
> My current opinion is that these authors are/were
> neither interested in efficiency nor in compatibility.

Even today one sees not an insignificant amount of 'micro-benchmarking'.
So I'd say that's still with us.  In my case (then and now) value for
money was the criteria i.e. minimizing memory spent while respecting
primitives need to be fast.  I've never regretted my choice of DTC for
a 16-bit forth.  So it was with some surprise to discover you considered
my choice of timestamp parser 'a joke'.  I was left to wonder by what
criteria.

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

#133776

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 2:36:56 +0000, dxf wrote:

> [..] I've never regretted my choice of DTC for
> a 16-bit forth.  So it was with some surprise to discover you considered
> my choice of timestamp parser 'a joke'.  I was left to wonder by what
> criteria.

Because of using 5 roll.

-marcel

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

#133778

On 19/06/2025 5:19 pm, mhx wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 2:36:56 +0000, dxf wrote:
> 
>> [..] I've never regretted my choice of DTC for
>> a 16-bit forth.  So it was with some surprise to discover you considered
>> my choice of timestamp parser 'a joke'.  I was left to wonder by what
>> criteria.
> 
> Because of using 5 roll.

: 2ROT  5 ROLL 5 ROLL ;

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

#133769

In article <nnd$183177d6$36b3681c@f0aabdece3e0eb21>,
 <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>I came upon
>https://github.com/uho/docker-forth
>
>with a plethora of Forths.
>[If you are interested in ciforth, you could have the latest
>release from github..ciforth ]
>
>docker tells you not what it is supposed to do, it list a litany
>of advantages. You can cash in ... only if you are willing to install
>the docker gui and experiment with it.
>
>I think of an application xfig. You pass an image and xfig turns it
>in a jigsaw puzzle. I can imagine that it is an advatage that it works
>the same on apple or ms. I'm quite sure that you have totally different
>version too.
>
>What can be the advantage of having that for Forths systems?
>The only remarkable about ciforth was that the versions are
>years behind.

Then (almost convinced...)

I tried installing docker.
It was already installed.

~: docker
docker: command not found
~: man docker
No manual entry for docker
~: info docker
info: No menu item 'docker' in node '(dir)Top'



>
>Groetjes Albert
>--
>Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
>Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
>Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
>And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.
-- 
Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.

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

#133787

On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:19:51 +0000, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

> I came upon
> https://github.com/uho/docker-forth
>
> with a plethora of Forths.
> [If you are interested in ciforth, you could have the latest
> release from github..ciforth ]

I wanted to give a try to forth32.com (binary
from ms2d148.zip archive) but it doesn't work.
Tried it under FreeDOS, MS-DOS 6.22 and DOSEMU
with FreeDOS, on two different machines.
It just shows the blinking screen and hangs
the whole system. Maybe it does require some
special configuration, anything?

--

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

#133788

No idea about Forth32, but perhaps you need to boot your
DOS using a memory extender, f.ex.
https://www.japheth.de/HX.html

--

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

#133789

In article <5b871bb3d8bc9fc9ba75933f1b5e2580@www.novabbs.com>,
LIT <zbigniew2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:19:51 +0000, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
>
>> I came upon
>> https://github.com/uho/docker-forth
>>
>> with a plethora of Forths.
>> [If you are interested in ciforth, you could have the latest
>> release from github..ciforth ]
>
>I wanted to give a try to forth32.com (binary
>from ms2d148.zip archive) but it doesn't work.
>Tried it under FreeDOS, MS-DOS 6.22 and DOSEMU
>with FreeDOS, on two different machines.
>It just shows the blinking screen and hangs
>the whole system.

I realised that you run one of my programs, fetched from

    https://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst/figforth.html

You post to the world and you expect every Chinese to
understand what you are talking about?
It is better that you provide context, and also sign your
messages, if need be with a pseudonum.

> Maybe it does require some special configuration, anything?
How would you expect a 32 bit Forth to work under MSDOS?
Of course it needs a special configuration.
This is explained in README.TXT. How could you have guessed?

Groetjes Albert
-- 
The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.
The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy
over 80 years, like Western Europe.

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

#133790

> I realised that you run one of my programs, fetched from
>
>     https://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst/figforth.html
>
> You post to the world and you expect every Chinese to
> understand what you are talking about?

No, I post to the thread and I expect its creator _maybe_
will understand that. But maybe not, from what I see.

> It is better that you provide context, and also sign your
> messages, if need be with a pseudonum.

Do you really believe, that if someone in the
Internet uses the name 'John Doe' - or, say,
'Paul Johnson' - then really his name is John Doe
(or Paul Johnson)? Because it looks more 'human-like'?

I never make any assumptions like that.

>> Maybe it does require some special configuration, anything?
> How would you expect a 32 bit Forth to work under MSDOS?
> Of course it needs a special configuration.
> This is explained in README.TXT. How could you have guessed?

Well in README.TXT there is just 'pointer'
to quite basic config.sys recommended, like this:

device=himem.sys
DOS=HIGH

Of course my config-s use that all the time
(among other settings). Do you mean some other
settings may interfere? The abobe seems not
to be enough - that's why I posted my question.

Anyway I tried it again using such spartan
config.sys - and with no autoexec.bat at all
- and it's still not going to work.

DOS 6.22, 386SX 25 Mhz

--

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web