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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #10331 > unrolled thread

A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter.

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

Contents

  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> - 2012-04-11 21:23 +0200
                                      Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-11 19:13 -0400
                                        Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-11 18:22 -0700
                                      Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's hwfwguy@gmail.com - 2012-04-13 09:37 -0700
                            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
        Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-10 11:07 -0400
          Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-11 19:00 -0400
            Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-11 19:24 -0700
              Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-12 14:03 -0400
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-12 08:19 -1000
                  Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-14 17:21 -0400
                    Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2012-04-15 00:11 +0200
                    Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-14 13:48 -1000
                      Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-15 13:09 -0400
                        Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-15 08:06 -1000
                          Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-16 09:45 +0000
                            Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-16 05:26 -0700
                        Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-15 11:10 -0700
                          Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-15 17:57 -0400
                            Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-15 12:22 -1000
                            Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-15 19:35 -0700
                              Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-15 16:58 -1000
                              Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-16 15:50 -0400
                                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-16 13:24 -0700
                                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-16 11:17 -1000
                    Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-14 17:07 -0700
                      Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-14 22:37 -0700
                        Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-14 20:54 -1000
                          Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-15 00:22 -0700
                        Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-15 07:00 -0700
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-12 12:45 -0700
                  Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-12 13:29 -0700
                    Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-12 13:56 -0700
                    Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-13 10:25 -0400
                      Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-13 08:12 -0700
                        Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-14 17:22 -0400
                          Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-14 16:10 -0700
                            Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-15 12:53 -0400
                              Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-15 11:01 -0700
                      Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-13 08:23 -0700
            Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-11 17:27 -1000
            Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-12 00:19 -0700
              Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-12 13:54 -0400
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-12 13:43 -0700
            Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-12 06:45 -0700
              Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's  Forth interpreter. anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-12 15:01 +0000
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's  Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-12 13:54 -0400
                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-12 10:49 -0700
                  Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-12 08:40 -1000
                    Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-12 12:38 -0700
                      Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-12 13:58 -1000
                  Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's  Forth interpreter. anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-13 10:42 +0000
                    Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-13 08:34 -0700
                      Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's  Forth interpreter. anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-13 15:48 +0000
                        Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's  Forth interpreter. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-13 08:25 -1000
                        Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's  Forth interpreter. stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2012-04-13 22:08 +0000
                          Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's  Forth interpreter. "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-13 12:26 -1000
                            Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-13 16:14 -0700
                              Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-14 09:04 -0700
                                Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-14 15:59 -0700
                                  Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-04-15 10:50 +0000
                                    Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-15 07:06 -0700
                            XT only or XT+NT (was: A short history ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-04-14 14:06 +0000
                              Re: XT only or XT+NT (was: A short history ...) Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-04-16 02:39 -0700
                    Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-13 08:46 -0700
              Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-12 13:53 -0400
            Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's Forth interpreter. "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-04-19 17:06 -0400

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

#10871 — Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's

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

> <kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:JsWdnbBu58gX6-bSnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > In article <7xiphhep64.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, no.email@nospam.invalid
> > (Paul Rubin) wrote:
> >
> > > this System Z thing sounds almost like an alien mothership landing,
> >
> > The point with IBM mainframes was (is) that you do not need system
> > access to write application programs.

Correct.

> 
> That goes to the question as to how much system access does one need to
> write application programs?

Not much, see above.

But on z there are only two real divisions, authorized and unauthorized. All
application code runs unauthorized. There are limits in the OS what those
programs can do and it protects the system and other programs. RACF helps
the sysprog control resources for unauthorized users so practically even
unauthorized users are not all the same, but they all have hard limits. If
you have authorization you can do anything.

> 
> I.e., character input and output, allocate memory or at least one large
> block of it for your own memory allocator, maybe simple file I/O if you want
> to save or load files, maybe a text window if using a GUI instead of a CLI,
> etc ...  In general, it isn't that much.  Almost all of that stuff should be
> easily available from any major language compiler on System Z.

It is but you can't write systems software with any of that. Read my lips,
"NO APPLICATIONS PROGRAMMING!" If you want to stop sounding stupid you're
going to have to actually read what I wrote and read some manuals. Otherwise
you're making up your own non-problems and failing to solve them in a world
of your own imagination that has no connection to reality and eventually
you'll be the only one in your little discussion. After your post today
you're pretty close to the edge.

1. There is no character I/O on System Z.
2. Applications cannot access, allocate, or manage memory except for memory
which is not useful for systems programming. This is a protection against
unauthorized access to system information by applications. And the memory
applications programs can manage is not useful for systems software, because
applications don't have control over memory persistence, sharing, location,
and protection that systems software requires.
3. File I/O you can do from applications is not the same type of file I/O
systems software often needs, especially from a performance perspective.
Systems software can control the backing store for I/O while applications
code cannot.
4. Applications programs cannot load systems software into memory nor can
they execute it. 
5. There is no GUI on System z.

> It should even be available to whatever assemblers they've got.

It is, as I have told you repeatedly. But as I've also told you repeatedly,
it is not enough. I am not talking about wanting a Forth that can add two
numbers together and save them in a text file. That should be boring, even
for you.

> However, whenever I bring this up "Nomen" says (conceptual paraphrase)
> "No, no, no!  It's far more complicated than that.  It's almost too
> complicated to explain.  You just don't understand."

Try reading some manuals. Then you'll realize how silly your rant is. It
takes a few decades to learn this stuff on the job and then you have to
really want it. You can't just make stuff up in your head and not listen to
what's being said and not go over manuals and think it works just like
Wintel or DOS. It doesn't. I understand if you don't have the time or energy
or interest to learn it but then at least admit you don't know anything
about it instead of making idiotic conclusions based on your zero factual
knowledge. That is the least we can expect.

> IMO, the responses from "Nomen" almost imply he's wanting to create system
> software or a virus since he supposedly needs a huge amount of direct access
> to the OS.

I already have full access to the OS via assembler and my friendly
sysprogs. Anything interesting to me is going to have to have the same
capability, got it now?

> Supposedly, System Z has the greatest software, compilers, assemblers and
> other OS tools, and no other machine or system in the world is as good,
> yet he wants Forth for it

Correct, I'm considering writing my own systems programming Forth for
it. Where's the contradiction? All I asked was one question about
standards. You're the one turning it into a multiple hundred post thread.

> ...  He's a contradiction, intentionally so or not.

What's with the attitude? You keep talking about something you know nothing
at all about and pretend that it's just like what you know, and when I point out
you're wrong you can't take it? Go read some doc and come back educated.
Or at least ask reasonable questions instead of accusing people of silly
stupid things. I can't explain everything to you, that should be obvious. If
you have specific questions I would try to answer them, but they really need
to be in the form of specific questions rather than rambling rants. I mean
did you expect me to give you a z/OS course for nothing? 

> I seriously doubt he even has access anymore to the machine he keeps
> touting.  I also get the impression he is all talk and no do.  But, I
> could be wrong.

You're wrong, but not just about what you wrote here. And if you don't
apologize for the accusations and manic-depressive rant you just posted
that is going to be the last time I discuss anything with you.

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

#10919 — Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:643edb4c9b85bb10c815e9f41d409043@dizum.com...
...

> You're wrong, but not just about what you wrote here. And if you don't
> apologize for the accusations and manic-depressive rant you just posted
> that is going to be the last time I discuss anything with you.
>

Well, your typical reply is:

 70% creative insults
 09% disparaging the experience of others
 09% simply declaring others to be wrong
 09% exalting IBM
 03% informative

I do enjoy a percentage of your posts.  So, no offense, but before I ever
consider an apology, I need you to answer the following question.  Given my
perception of your replies in the breakdown above, what *exactly* would I
lose out on if you never spoke to me again?  I.e., you're supposedly not
versed in C or Forth or x86 or anything computing related that I'm
interested in, apparently.  AFAICT, I only lose out on the conversation of
me mostly attempting to convince you of something, unless you've been
holding back on your knowledge, experience, identity, etc that I'd be
interested in discussing.  And, wasn't it you to whom I posted that *huge*
list of topics you could discuss with me?


Rod Pemberton

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

#11164 — Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's

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

> I do enjoy a percentage of your posts.  So, no offense, but before I ever
> consider an apology, I need you to answer the following question.  Given my
> perception of your replies in the breakdown above, what *exactly* would I
> lose out on if you never spoke to me again? 

No personal experience with this but it sounds like a prostitute's view of
the world. In other words what's in it for me? The only thing that matters
is how much you can get out of them right? Other things like what's the right way
to deal with other people (hint: making slanderous accusations and attacking
somebody who has participated in discussions with you over a long period
isn't a nice pastime) or how to be a responsible decent human being don't
count. It all comes down to what do I get and how much does it cost
me. Sad...

Sorry, I can't relate to that kind of thinking. I can understand how people
can get that way though. I guess they have treated programmers like hookers
long enough some people can get their reality bent and lose sight of what's
important and become mercenary and it takes over their whole life.

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

#11176 — Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's

"Fritz Wuehler" <fritz@spamexpire-201204.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote
in message
news:56d14ea1eb92fb4e5eb61d61123f10d8@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
> "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> wrote:
...

> > I do enjoy a percentage of your posts.  So, no offense, but before I
> > ever consider an apology, I need you to answer the following question.
> > Given my perception of your replies in the breakdown above, what
> > *exactly* would I lose out on if you never spoke to me again?
>
> No personal experience with this but it sounds like a prostitute's view of
> the world. In other words what's in it for me? The only thing that matters
> is how much you can get out of them right? Other things like what's the
> right way to deal with other people (hint: making slanderous accusations
> and attacking somebody who has participated in discussions with you over
> a long period isn't a nice pastime) or how to be a responsible decent
> human being don't count. It all comes down to what do I get and how much
> does it cost me. Sad...
>

No, it's about balance and reciprocity.  I only have so much time to spend
on nonsense and laughs.  If there isn't something of perceived value from my
end, there really is no point in continuing to converse.  I'm not saying I'm
stopping, however.  But, I've wasted much time in my life of unbalanced
relationships because *I* enjoyed the relationship.  Unfortunately, I was
always the giver and others always took.  It took a long time for me to come
to the realization that my relationships start out balanced, fair, equal,
but become lopsided over time.  If I'm not receiving something too, why
should I partake in a relationship?  There was a point in time where anyone
who wanted to be my friend could be without question until they did
something to prove they shouldn't be.  But, that open and accepting attitude
of others is also what led to said relationship problems.  I'm sorry if that
seems harsh, or sad, or emotionally cold to you, but I was forced to make a
rational choice via my experiences.  Maybe, that'll change someday.  Some
people just aren't fair in their treatment of others.  And, so, that's the
way I see things for the moment.  E.g., in Usenet newsgroups, typically some
people ask all the questions and others give all the replies.  It's rare to
see people both ask and reply.  Now, much of the time those asking questions
don't know enough to answer questions by others.  However, in many other
instances, the people asking are just being selfish and focused on their
needs and won't bother with the needs of others.


Rod Pemberton

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

#11180 — Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's

Oh no, it's kill the inferior 50% time.

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

#11264 — Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 12:23:48 PM UTC-7, Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> I guess they have treated programmers like hookers long enough ...

We try to leave 'em satisfied.

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

#10910 — Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's

Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201204.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
> > ... you guys are going to have to learn a lot about System Z if you're
> > going to keep banging on me about it.
> 
> You're asking the newsgroup for advice about solving a certain problem,

Uh where did you get that idea from, your crystal balls? ;-)

I asked if there was a standard for Forth that most Forthers agreed was
good. There my question stopped. You guys took it from there.

If I do this project I am sure I will be asking for help on Forth but so far
I haven't.

> so yes, we can probably be more helpful if we understand the problem
> better, thus the questions. ;-).  The problem itself is also sort of
> interesting.  From a contemporary programmers' viewpoint, this System Z
> thing sounds almost like an alien mothership landing, that on closer
> inspection is built with weird neolithic technology.  They built a
> stardrive out of THAT?  They certainly have access to modern Earth
> materials, so it's perplexing why they don't use it if they are still
> building the stuff.

Humor aside the design of everything from the architecture to the tools was
and is ahead of its time. It's very modern and offers more control over
workload and finer grained control of resources and performance and recovery
than any other common OS. And I get to use my favorite language all the time.

> >> Is an interpreter a key feature that you've decided on?
> > Maybe. Probably. Isn't an interpreter something every Forth should have?
> 
> It could be a cross-compiler, for example.  I'm not sure if that's what
> Rod meant.

That doesn't sound very attractive. This will be hosted on System
Z. Ultimately it will need to be compiled to be useful.

> 
> >> Is threaded code a key feature that you've decided on?
> > What does that mean, multithreaded? Or threaded as in Threaded Interpretive
> > Languages threaded.
> 
> Threaded interpretive language.  The alternatives would be bytecode,
> native code compilation, etc.  As a separate topic, there are
> multitasking extensions to Forth that are pretty simple, and might be
> useful to you if your host OS doesn't supply decent multitasking.

I guess I'll have the TIL implementation to begin with and for building the
system up. After that everything will be compiled to some extent. Native
compilation, not bytecode. An authorized VM would be truly weird. I have to
think about that one. The OS supports all the multitasking you could ever
want, just need to invoke the right services.

> 
> > I don't think so. Part of writing systems software is avoiding painting
> > yourself into environmental corners that all existing HLL have painted
> > themselves into. 
> 
> I'm still trying to understand what these corners are.  I'm imagining by
> "systems code" you're talking about writing low level device drivers
> where you have to pass a control block with a precise bit layout, using
> systems services that require data passed in specific machine registers,
> that sort of thing.

That but not only that and not even mostly that. You have to not depend on
system services that stop you from using other systems services. Existing
compilers don't have to deal with this so they can always use SVCs for
example. Systems software often has to do things that can't be done with
SVCs so if the code invokes the service in the wrong mode it will fail.
That's just one very simple case, there are dozens of others.

>  Forth might be useful for part of that, but you'll
> still probably need asm interface layers at the bottom level.

The whole point of this is to allow everything to be done natively in one
language (Forth). If there is one line of external assembler required then
it's a fail.

> 
> > I have to believe, looking back, it was a conscious decision not to
> > allow that...just like IBM never let PL/S, PL/AS, PL/X outside (except
> > as noted). They were afraid it would be too easy to write systems
> > software and compete with them,
> 
> That may have been the situation in the 1960's but I think these days,
> compiler technology is much more accessible, and also nobody(?) is
> really trying to compete with IBM on those mainframe systems.

That's not correct. I work for companies that write systems software for IBM
machines and it's a multi billion dollar a year business even now. IBM has
sued several of these companies and bought some of them out. There is a lot
at stake and a lot of competition. Everything is trade secrets and patents
and no edge is left unturned. IBM still wants to make money selling software
and they still want to keep all the advantage they have.

> I looked at the docs for BSL (Basic Systems Language, apparently an
> earlier name for PL/S) and it's a quite low level implementation
> language (I'd say mostly lower level than C), with PL/I syntax.  It lets
> you do stuff like manually allocate machine registers to variables ("put
> variable X in register 9"), use inline asm code freely, etc.  It also
> seems to handle bit-fields conveniently, e.g. you can declare a variable
> to be 13 bits wide.  All in all though, it looks archaic.

It should, it's from the 1960s. PL/AS, then PL/S, then PL/X have modernized
things. It's what most of the OS is written in now.

> That stuff today is usually written in C with some asm intrinsics or
> subroutines. 

Except for the fact that until very recently there was no C available on IBM
that could support the asm interface and the environmental requirements. Now you
can use mostly "C" but you'll be doing 90% of it in C's assembler syntax.
Nobody could suggest it's a good or even acceptable solution. It's ugly,
it's unreadable. But you can claim "you did it in C".

> It also occurs to me, I'm not sure what you don't like about C, but if
> it's lack of type and pointer safety compared with PL/S, then you might
> decide that Forth is worse rather than better.  Forth (like assembler)
> has no typechecking of any sort.

No, I write assembler and I don't need any of that stuff. Where I work C
doesn't have any reason to exist. I realize in other places it does.

> Maybe you really want something like Ada rather than Forth.

I don't think I could write an Ada compiler at all and it would have to
support system programming semantics (I know there is a systems programming
annex, and no, it does not allow you to write systems software on z) which
means a new syntax and again, any language anybody writes is going to need
to include a way to access all the system control blocks and services
natively because now they're 100% assembler/PL/X only. That's a project for
a comittee and a consortium, it's not something any one person can do. I
have heard of a couple of guys who might be able to write a compiler like
that but I am not one of them as far as I know. Anyway the Forth angle is
the extensibility. Ada is Ada. If you need to add stuff you either change
the language so it's not Ada or you have to call external code. In Forth you
can theoretically add words and stay within the Forth "way" and still do
whatever you need. At least that is what I'm thinking from what I have seen
so far.

> I've thought of Forth and Ada as sort of opposite approaches to getting
> away from the shortcomings of C.  Or, maybe some aspects of PL/S that C
> doesn't handle very well could embed conveniently into C++.

I guess you could look at it that way but I think Forth wasn't written as a
response to C because C wasn't very pervasive at the time Forth was designed.
Seems Chuck Moore just wasn't happy with anything available. And Ada I think
was a response to general chaos and lack of discipline more than a reaction
to C, it was also fairly early. And Ada is based on a PL/I or ALGOL syntax
and is for a different kind of programmer. C is a weird hybrid mutation.

I don't know if you could get C++ to do what PL/S does but I do know on z it
would involve several things. One you would have to disconnect the runtime and
replace it with your own. I don't know if this is possible or not. If IBM
offers the same option with their C++ as they do with C then it is already
available. Then you would have the same issues as in C, lack of
environmental support. If environmental support was also added to C++ at the
same time then it will be ok, if not then there is no way to do it. If all
that is ok so far then you still need to wrap huge amounts of code in the
C/assembler ugliness and make classes out of it. But I think the end result
wouldn't be very usable. 

> > I realize technically that's true but it seems so abusive to write
> > systems software in LISP. And it has to be something I don't despise
> > so..apologies to Paul, I know he is a Lisp fan, but it's not my
> > thing. In the end there is going to have to be a compiled version or
> > it won't be very useful.
> 
> Lisp is very often compiled, and OS's have been written in it.  Most
> serious Lisp systems include compilers

I am aware of that. I think some context was lost in what you quoted or
maybe I did a poor job of editing. I think my comment about wanting a
compiled version was an answer to something Rod had said that you didn't
quote.

> > Neither brainfuck nor Forth nor any existing language has the facilities
> > needed to write systems software on Z. The difference is you could probably
> > write Forth and extend it
> 
> Rather than writing your own Forth, maybe you should spend some evenings
> looking at Eforth, which is very easy to port to an assembly language
> target.

Again, this project is much much more than porting anything to an assembly
language target. If that's all it was it would be useless to me, and also
not interesting. All it would be is an application language and I would
still have to write a whole new runtime. The point is, can I write a systems
programming Forth for z and would I use it? Those are the questions I'm
thinking about. 
> 
> > can you tell me on Intel since you know it so well, how would you
> > switch from 32 bit to 64 bit mode and how you could change privilege
> > levels in brainfuck?
> 
> Pretty much the same way as in C, Forth, Ada, or anything else, I'd
> imagine.  You'd use the HLL to build up the necessary x86 data
> structures (page tables, segment register contents) in memory, then call
> a small assembly language routine that zaps your data into the
> appropriate machine registers.

Again unacceptable. I don't see the advantage in making things more
complicated. Today life is simple. I am looking for a pure single language
solution. When I write assembler I don't need anything else. The assembler
is super. When I write PL/X I don't need anything else. Anything else I
would be interested for this project has to be able to do everything. I
don't like mixed language projects and I don't need another, inferior
tool.

> The idea is to do what you can in the HLL for maintainability purposes,
> then call a minimal asm layer for the low level hardware specific parts.

I accept that most people hold this view but in my business we don't and
until now we haven't seen any use in HLL at all except for the UI where Rexx
was used and increasingly C, C++, and Java are used. The code we sell is
usually not algorithmic and we haven't found we would gain by using any
HLL. Some people might tend towards an HLL if one was available that could
support the environment but at this point there isn't anything but the newer
C and again it's ugly and probably harder than assembler. You really have to
want to make a point and be some kind of nutty C evangelist to use it for this.

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

#10564 — Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's

"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. 

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

#10493 — Re: A short history of the stages of development and status of RP's For interpreter.

"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> writes:
>There are probably Forths available for IBM 360.  I just don't recall seeing
>them.

At Forth-Tagung 2007 Luca Masini gave a talk on "pforth for MVS"
(EBCDIC and all).  The slides are here:
<http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/forth-tagung07/vortraege/>.

- 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: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/

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

#10450

Rod Pemberton wrote:

> 
> Rob Chapman's stack quarks
> http://clubweb.interbaun.com/~rc/Timbre/ContentPages/Timbre/SQP/StackQuarksPaper.html
> 

Nice notes, thank you

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

#10650

"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote in message
news:jkgbte$3f7$1@speranza.aioe.org...
...

> unimplemented such as (?DO) and ?DO etc

Ok, DO and ?DO and related words (DO) and (?DO) are complete and work with
LOOP and +LOOP.

Now, it's on to LEAVE, and testing POSTPONE, etc.


Rod Pemberton

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

#10703

"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote in message
news:jl5anb$p3i$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote in message
> news:jkgbte$3f7$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> ...
>
> > unimplemented such as (?DO) and ?DO etc
>
> Ok, DO and ?DO and related words (DO) and (?DO) are complete and work with
> LOOP and +LOOP.
>

Actually they had a couple of errors ...

> Now, it's on to LEAVE, and testing POSTPONE, etc.
>

POSTPONE works.  COMPILE, works.  RECURSE works.  DO ?DO LOOP +LOOP
seem to be working correctly now ...  LEAVE is unimplemented.  CELLS and
CHARS
still need * multiply which is simple and be a primitive or low-level word.
I just
haven't gotten to it yet.


Rod Pemberton

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

#11113

"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> wrote in message
news:jlbqb2$3a6$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote in message
> news:jl5anb$p3i$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> > "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote in message
> > news:jkgbte$3f7$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> > ...
> >
> > > unimplemented such as (?DO) and ?DO etc
> >
> > Ok, DO and ?DO and related words (DO) and (?DO) are complete and work
> > with LOOP and +LOOP.
> >
>
> Actually they had a couple of errors ...
>
> > Now, it's on to LEAVE, and testing POSTPONE, etc.
> >
>
> POSTPONE works.  COMPILE, works.  RECURSE works.  DO ?DO LOOP
> +LOOP seem to be working correctly now ...  LEAVE is unimplemented.
> CELLS and CHARS still need * multiply which is simple and be a primitive
> or low-level word.  I just haven't gotten to it yet.
>

Well, I implemented some more words:

.S #TIB * / MOD /MOD 2* 2/ AHEAD DEPTH DUMP
ERASE MAX MIN MOVE SOURCE

So, the similar words FILL MOVE CMOVE ERASE are all completed.

In the process, I eliminated a few primitives and added others.  I only need
about four words to run a couple of Forth tests.  I also added Forth text
versions of CMOVE and LIT . LIT is still available internally as a primitive
and won't be eliminated due to dependence of the interpreter upon it.  CMOVE
is used only once internally as pre-compiled Forth.  So, it may be replaced
by the Forth text version in the future.

I also found a variety of bugs, mostly un-dropped stack values with
IF-ELSE-THENs around DO-LOOPs.  LEAVE is still not implemented.  I might
look at implenting SEE next.  I need to get to PICK and ROLL.  I should be
able to do LSHIFT and RSHIFT now.  Also, FIND as Forth text is still waiting
for my attention ...  That leaves about 50 ANS core and core extension words
to do, by name at least.  Although, some of those are obsolete.  Most of
these seem to be related to doubles, "numeric conversion", or "mass storage
I/O".  Although, many of my definitions are not ANS compliant.  Some have
different parameters, e.g., COMPARE, while others used reduced definitions,
e.g., SOURCE.

Since my interpreter is in C, I'm also thinking about implementing a Forth
word to load entire files of Forth source text via name.  This behavior is
already present to load the initial dictionary, but is not accessible from
Forth.  I'm thinking about calling it FLOAD if that's not in use ...

I also have a word that I named 'LAST which returns the CFA of the LAST (or
LATEST) word, i.e., ' of LAST, instead of the NFA (fig-Forth LATEST) or the
start of dictionary entry (Forth-83 LAST).  Is there another name for this?
I've found I'm using it a bit for debugging, so I wondered if there was a
standard name.  I don't see any mention of LAST or LATEST in Forth-79 or
ANS-94 or related words.


Rod Pemberton

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

#11175

"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> wrote in message
news:jm1ic9$ktk$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> wrote in message
> news:jlbqb2$3a6$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> > "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote in message
> > news:jl5anb$p3i$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> > > "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote in message
> > > news:jkgbte$3f7$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > unimplemented such as (?DO) and ?DO etc
> > >
> > > Ok, DO and ?DO and related words (DO) and (?DO) are complete and work
> > > with LOOP and +LOOP.
> > >
> >
> > Actually they had a couple of errors ...
> >
> > > Now, it's on to LEAVE, and testing POSTPONE, etc.
> > >
> >
> > POSTPONE works.  COMPILE, works.  RECURSE works.  DO ?DO LOOP
> > +LOOP seem to be working correctly now ...  LEAVE is unimplemented.
> > CELLS and CHARS still need * multiply which is simple and be a primitive
> > or low-level word.  I just haven't gotten to it yet.
> >
>
> Well, I implemented some more words:
>
> .S #TIB * / MOD /MOD 2* 2/ AHEAD DEPTH DUMP
> ERASE MAX MIN MOVE SOURCE
>
> So, the similar words FILL MOVE CMOVE ERASE are all completed.
>
> In the process, I eliminated a few primitives and added others.  I only
> need about four words to run a couple of Forth tests.  I also added Forth
> text versions of CMOVE and LIT . LIT is still available internally as a
> primitive and won't be eliminated due to dependence of the interpreter
> upon it.  CMOVE is used only once internally as pre-compiled Forth.
> So, it may be replaced by the Forth text version in the future.
>
> I also found a variety of bugs, mostly un-dropped stack values with
> IF-ELSE-THENs around DO-LOOPs.  LEAVE is still not implemented.
> I might look at implenting SEE next.  I need to get to PICK and ROLL.
> I should be able to do LSHIFT and RSHIFT now.  Also, FIND as Forth
> text is still waiting for my attention ...  That leaves about 50 ANS core
> and core extension words to do, by name at least.  Although, some of those
> are obsolete.  Most of these seem to be related to doubles, "numeric
> conversion", or "mass storage I/O".  Although, many of my definitions
> are not ANS compliant.  Some have different parameters, e.g., COMPARE,
> while others used reduced definitions, e.g., SOURCE.
>
> Since my interpreter is in C, I'm also thinking about implementing a Forth
> word to load entire files of Forth source text via name.  This behavior is
> already present to load the initial dictionary, but is not accessible from
> Forth.  I'm thinking about calling it FLOAD if that's not in use ...
>

Apparently, FLOAD as I was imagining it would end up being nearly identical
to ANS' INCLUDE , but with a slightly different syntax.  So, there may be no
need for FLOAD ...

> I also have a word that I named 'LAST which returns the CFA of the LAST
> (or LATEST) word, i.e., ' of LAST, instead of the NFA (fig-Forth LATEST)
> or the start of dictionary entry (Forth-83 LAST).  Is there another name
> for this?  I've found I'm using it a bit for debugging, so I wondered if
> there was a standard name.  I don't see any mention of LAST or LATEST
> in Forth-79 or ANS-94 or related words.
>

Ok, it seems no one knows, or no one cares about 'LAST.


And, I implemented a few more words ...  Oh, I seem to be on a tear now!

SP! DP! RP! SP@ DEPTH ABS <= >= 2+ 2-
2ROT -2ROT NAND NOR .( LSHIFT RSHIFT

I'm not sure how I missed .(  Also, implementing SEE may be an issue since I
have some words without dictionary headers ...

So, maybe 2VARIABLE 2CONSTANT 2LITERAL PICK and ROLL are up next.
I need to look at :NONAME .  And, I need to find out if Forth-79 and
Forth-83 word SET is still used.


Rod Pemberton

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

#11181

On Apr 11, 7:00 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
wrote:
> So, maybe 2VARIABLE 2CONSTANT 2LITERAL PICK and ROLL are up next.
> I need to look at :NONAME .  And, I need to find out if Forth-79 and
> Forth-83 word SET is still used.

There is no SET in either the Forth79 or Forth83 required word sets.
What is the behavior supposed to be?

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

#11209

"BruceMcF" <agila61@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:56cc36e8-2408-4a10-90c6-201f4295b23d@j15g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 11, 7:00 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
...
> > And, I need to find out if Forth-79 and
> > Forth-83 word SET is still used.
>
> There is no SET in either the Forth79 or Forth83 required
> word sets.  What is the behavior supposed to be?

Forth-79 - part of "Reference Word Set"

"
SET         n addr  --
    A defining word used in the form:
         n  addr  SET  <name>
    Defines a word <name> which, when executed, will cause the
    value  n  to be stored at address.
"

Forth-83 - part of "Uncontrolled Reference Words"

"
SET        16b addr --                                                    M
    A defining word executed in the form:
           16b addr SET <name>
    Defines a word <name> which, when executed, will cause the
    value 16b to be stored at addr.
"


It looks useful, perhaps for writing values to memory mapped devices ...
The "M" is for multi-programming impact or somesuch ...


Rod Pemberton

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

#11212

On 4/12/12 8:03 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "BruceMcF"<agila61@netscape.net>  wrote in message
> news:56cc36e8-2408-4a10-90c6-201f4295b23d@j15g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 11, 7:00 pm, "Rod Pemberton"<do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm>
> ...
>>> And, I need to find out if Forth-79 and
>>> Forth-83 word SET is still used.
>>
>> There is no SET in either the Forth79 or Forth83 required
>> word sets.  What is the behavior supposed to be?
>
> Forth-79 - part of "Reference Word Set"
>
> "
> SET         n addr  --
>      A defining word used in the form:
>           n  addr  SET<name>
>      Defines a word<name>  which, when executed, will cause the
>      value  n  to be stored at address.
> "
>
> Forth-83 - part of "Uncontrolled Reference Words"
>
> "
> SET        16b addr --                                                    M
>      A defining word executed in the form:
>             16b addr SET<name>
>      Defines a word<name>  which, when executed, will cause the
>      value 16b to be stored at addr.
> "
>
>
> It looks useful, perhaps for writing values to memory mapped devices ...
> The "M" is for multi-programming impact or somesuch ...

Well, those reference wordsets were just a grab-bag of words that some 
people felt were useful, and it was easier to include them than discuss 
whether they should be included. There's never been a requirement or 
even an expectation that they should be included, just the names were 
reserved in case someone wanted that functionality.  AFAIK SET was never 
picked up in widespread use, which is why it never made it into any of 
the more formal standards.

It's trivial to define using DOES> so if you feel it's useful, go ahead!

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]

#11291

"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message
news:NOqdnX8yHNVSgRrSnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@supernews.com...
> On 4/12/12 8:03 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> > [SET word]
>
> It's trivial to define [SET] using DOES> so if you feel it's useful,
> go ahead!

(BTW, that's SET paraphrased, not [SET] in Forth compile syntax.)

I did "go ahead", although I'm not sure how useful it is.  It seems well
suited to writing values to ports or memory mapped devices, and seems like
it may have come from an assembly language context.

Well, this is what I came up with for the SET syntax
- as I understand the syntax.

  : SET CREATE SWAP , , DOES> DUP @ SWAP CELL+ @ ! ;

It also works with gForth, Win32Forth, and bigForth.

FYI, this definition for SET won't work in a colon definition.  ANS' TO
which is used for VALUEs apparently does work in colon definitions, but
CONSTANT and VARIABLE don't.  SET also uses DOES> which allows ANS
compliance.  However, simple Forths may prefer to implement SET using their
run-time CREATE, i.e., (CREATE) , instead of DOES> .  That definition is
much messier, BTW.  I've also searched c.l.f. and have not located any
similar definitions.  So, it probably wasn't widespread use.


Rod Pemberton
PS.  How does one text mark changes, like me inserting SET above when
[ ] are used for paraphrasing are also used in Forth notation?

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

#11294

Op Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:21:43 -0400 schreef Rod Pemberton:

> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message
> news:NOqdnX8yHNVSgRrSnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@supernews.com...
>> On 4/12/12 8:03 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> [SET word]
>>
>> It's trivial to define [SET] using DOES> so if you feel it's useful,
>> go ahead!
> 
> (BTW, that's SET paraphrased, not [SET] in Forth compile syntax.)
> 
> I did "go ahead", although I'm not sure how useful it is.  It seems well
> suited to writing values to ports or memory mapped devices, and seems like
> it may have come from an assembly language context.
> 
> Well, this is what I came up with for the SET syntax
> - as I understand the syntax.
> 
>   : SET CREATE SWAP , , DOES> DUP @ SWAP CELL+ @ ! ;
If you have the words 2@ and 2, the following is equivalent and shorter:
: SET ( val addr "name" -- ) CREATE 2, DOES> 2@ ! ;

> 
> It also works with gForth, Win32Forth, and bigForth.
> 
> FYI, this definition for SET won't work in a colon definition.  ANS' TO
> which is used for VALUEs apparently does work in colon definitions, but
> CONSTANT and VARIABLE don't.  SET also uses DOES> which allows ANS
> compliance.  However, simple Forths may prefer to implement SET using their
> run-time CREATE, i.e., (CREATE) , instead of DOES> .  That definition is
> much messier, BTW.  I've also searched c.l.f. and have not located any
> similar definitions.  So, it probably wasn't widespread use.
> 
TO is for VALUEs (and LOCALS) and has nothing to do with CREATE and DOES>
although VALUES may be made with CREATE and DOES>.

: VALUE CREATE , DOES> @ ;
: TO ' >BODY STATE @ IF POSTPONE LITERAL POSTPONE ! ELSE ! THEN ; IMMEDIATE

> 
> Rod Pemberton
> PS.  How does one text mark changes, like me inserting SET above when
> [ ] are used for paraphrasing are also used in Forth notation?

I don't understand this. [ and ] switch the compiler off and on.
SET is not used in colon definitions. It is a defining word like CONSTANT
and VARIABLE. You can use the word that is defined by SET inside or outside
a colon definition.

Example:
$FF $C010 SET BLINK-ON
$00 %C010 SET BLINK-OFF

BLINK-ON and BLINK-OFF might (I really don't know much of the 6502 ;-(
turn blinking of the screen on and off.

-- 
Coos

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

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

#11298

On 4/14/12 11:21 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> "Elizabeth D. Rather"<erather@forth.com>  wrote in message
> news:NOqdnX8yHNVSgRrSnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@supernews.com...
>> On 4/12/12 8:03 AM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> [SET word]
>>
>> It's trivial to define [SET] using DOES>  so if you feel it's useful,
>> go ahead!
>
> (BTW, that's SET paraphrased, not [SET] in Forth compile syntax.)
>
> I did "go ahead", although I'm not sure how useful it is.  It seems well
> suited to writing values to ports or memory mapped devices, and seems like
> it may have come from an assembly language context.
>
> Well, this is what I came up with for the SET syntax
> - as I understand the syntax.
>
>    : SET CREATE SWAP , , DOES>  DUP @ SWAP CELL+ @ ! ;
>
> It also works with gForth, Win32Forth, and bigForth.
>
> FYI, this definition for SET won't work in a colon definition.  ANS' TO
> which is used for VALUEs apparently does work in colon definitions, but
> CONSTANT and VARIABLE don't.

Of course not. This SET is a defining word, like CONSTANT and VARIABLE. 
Defining words are not used in definitions, they *are* definitions 
themselves ( : is one of many defining words).

> SET also uses DOES>  which allows ANS
> compliance.  However, simple Forths may prefer to implement SET using their
> run-time CREATE, i.e., (CREATE) , instead of DOES>  .  That definition is
> much messier, BTW.  I've also searched c.l.f. and have not located any
> similar definitions.  So, it probably wasn't widespread use.

Frankly, I don't understand the description of SET that you posted:

SET        16b addr
     A defining word executed in the form:
            16b addr SET <name>
     Defines a word <name> which, when executed, will cause the
     value 16b to be stored at addr.

If the point of SET is to define a word associated with an address that 
will store a given value in the address, why does the defining word take 
two arguments? I would think it would be more like:

    HEX FFFC SET OUT-PORT \ Defines OUT-PORT to store a value in FFFC

    0 OUT-PORT	\ Stores 0 in the port
    1 OUT-PORT   \ Stores 1 in the port

...etc.  The definition of SET becomes simpler, and OUT-PORT is now a 
word that you can use just fine in a colon definition.


> Rod Pemberton
> PS.  How does one text mark changes, like me inserting SET above when
> [ ] are used for paraphrasing are also used in Forth notation?

Sorry, don't understand the question.

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]

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

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

csiph-web