Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #23175 > unrolled thread
| Started by | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-06-04 18:14 +0000 |
| Last post | 2013-07-22 09:47 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 169 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-04 18:14 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-04 11:28 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-06 15:37 -0500
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-06 13:49 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2013-06-07 12:32 +1000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-07 14:36 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-07 08:39 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-07 17:04 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-07 11:19 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-06-07 17:24 -0400
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-07 23:04 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-11 14:59 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> - 2013-06-11 16:09 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-12 08:08 -0500
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> - 2013-06-12 13:52 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-12 14:17 -0500
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-13 08:24 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-12 14:18 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> - 2013-06-12 15:05 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-13 01:40 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-06-13 08:55 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-06-12 21:05 -1000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-06-13 10:49 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-13 08:55 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-06-13 14:33 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-13 13:14 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> - 2013-06-13 18:33 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-06-14 01:25 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 12:00 -0400
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-06-15 14:35 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 19:29 -0400
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-06-17 03:31 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-06-17 19:16 -0400
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 11:58 -0400
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-06-11 18:32 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-11 10:33 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2013-06-11 20:42 +0100
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-12 00:20 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-06-12 01:29 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-06-12 19:52 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-12 14:19 -0500
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-13 08:47 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-13 07:45 -0500
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-13 13:04 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-14 21:32 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-17 17:15 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-06-20 09:42 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-06-19 21:52 -1000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-16 10:01 -0500
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-16 14:14 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-06-16 23:58 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-16 23:17 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-17 16:00 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2013-06-17 08:05 -1000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-17 19:33 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Gerry Jackson <spam@qlikz.org> - 2013-06-17 21:23 +0100
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-12 22:58 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-06-12 20:48 -1000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 12:05 -0400
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-13 10:39 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-11 18:44 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-12 15:16 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-15 12:54 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-06-15 11:05 -1000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-15 14:21 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-06-15 23:06 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-15 14:56 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-06-16 00:33 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-15 16:47 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-16 09:45 -0500
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-17 16:19 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-06-17 11:51 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-18 00:31 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-18 00:33 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-18 00:46 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-18 04:11 -0500
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-18 23:51 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-19 04:32 -0500
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-19 02:42 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-06-19 12:08 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-19 09:25 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-06-19 19:10 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-20 17:08 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-19 09:04 -0500
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-19 09:26 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-07 16:45 -0500
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-06-06 23:29 -0400
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-07 14:41 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-06-07 17:24 -0400
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-07 23:07 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-06-08 01:26 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-07 17:54 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-19 10:01 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-06-08 07:29 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge mhx@iae.nl - 2013-06-07 23:17 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge mhx@iae.nl - 2013-06-08 01:30 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-07 23:41 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-06-08 09:35 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-06-08 14:28 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-06-08 21:22 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-19 10:06 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-06-19 12:27 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-19 10:44 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-07-05 07:41 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-07-05 14:45 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-07-05 09:58 -0500
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-07-12 02:06 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-07-11 18:36 -1000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-07-12 17:36 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-07-12 07:59 -1000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-12 11:23 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2013-07-12 21:10 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-07-13 06:19 -0400
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2013-06-08 21:55 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> - 2013-06-11 14:09 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-08 07:49 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-08 07:47 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-08 00:59 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-06-08 16:40 -0500
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-13 01:24 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-06-07 00:37 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-06-07 00:53 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-07 14:49 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> - 2013-06-11 14:13 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-12 14:21 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge the_gavino_himself <visphatesjava@gmail.com> - 2013-06-15 23:22 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-06-15 21:26 -1000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2013-06-16 12:58 -0700
OT Making fun of gavino. was Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-06-19 10:52 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Carsten Strotmann <cas@strotmann.de> - 2013-07-11 22:38 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-11 14:08 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-07-12 01:53 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2013-07-11 23:49 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-07-12 12:24 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Hannu Vuolasaho <hannu.vuolasaho@nospam.tut.fi.invalid> - 2013-07-12 12:29 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-07-12 01:42 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-11 19:42 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-07-12 02:56 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-11 20:16 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-07-12 03:14 -0400
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-12 00:35 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-07-12 04:02 -0400
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> - 2013-07-12 09:08 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> - 2013-07-13 06:16 -0400
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-07-12 03:02 -0500
yourforth : progress report albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-08-01 11:00 +0000
Re: yourforth : progress report "David N. Williams" <williams@umich.edu> - 2013-08-01 08:13 -0400
Re: yourforth : progress report m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2013-08-01 07:22 -0700
Re: yourforth : progress report albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-08-01 19:20 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> - 2013-07-12 06:10 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-07-12 12:37 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> - 2013-07-12 12:56 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-07-12 13:55 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> - 2013-07-12 14:22 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> - 2013-07-12 14:30 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-12 11:12 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-07-12 19:01 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-07-12 23:05 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-07-18 19:38 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2013-07-12 00:10 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-07-12 16:55 +0000
jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-07-18 19:18 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2013-07-18 11:18 -1000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2013-07-18 23:23 +0200
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-07-19 00:47 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-07-19 00:54 -0700
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2013-07-19 09:50 +0000
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2013-07-19 05:24 -0500
Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2013-07-22 09:47 +0000
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-04 18:14 +0000 |
| Subject | jonesforth: taking up the challenge |
| Message-ID | <51ae2e6d$0$26867$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl> |
Remember we discussed jonesforth at the German convention?
I take up the challenge to make a similar forth.
What do we want? The enticement of jonesforth but
- ISO compatibility (for all words with an ISO name that is)
- no words in assembler if Forth is feasible
- one file, Forth coded in assembler
The last two points are related, jonesforth has a startup library
in Forth:
cat jonesforth.f - | jonesforth
But this means a whole working interpreter must be present and be
coded in assembler. This I don't like at all.
Part of the enticement of jonesforth is its introduction.
I cannot totally agree with it. Here are my proposed changes.
jones:
FORTH is one of those alien languages which most working
programmers regard in the same way as Haskell, LISP, and so
on. Something so strange that they'd rather any thoughts of it
just go away so they can get on with writing this paying code.
But that's wrong and if you care at all about programming then
you should at least understand all these languages, even if
you will never use them.
horst:
FORTH is one of those alien languages which most working
programmers regard in the same way as Haskell, LISP, and so
on. Something so strange that they'd rather any thoughts of it
just go away so they can get on with writing this paying code.
But that's wrong and if you care at all about programming then
you should at understand at least a bit about other languages
than the ubiquitous c, Java or Python.
jones:
LISP is the ultimate high-level language, and features from
LISP are being added every decade to the more common
languages. But FORTH is in some ways the ultimate in low level
programming. Out of the box it lacks features like dynamic
memory management and even strings. In fact, at its primitive
level it lacks even basic concepts like IF-statements and
loops.
horst:
~ LISP is the ultimate lanugages, with unlimited flexibility as
~ long as you're prepared to use round brackets. Forth rivals
that flexibility, as long as you're prepared to separate your
words with spaces. Forth is the ultimate do-it-yourself
language. Even basic concepts like IF-statements and loops
are molded to you liking. Things like dynamic memory
management are an add on. Out of the box it lacks almost
everything.
jones:
Why then would you want to learn FORTH? There are several very
good reasons. First and foremost, FORTH is minimal. You really
can write a complete FORTH in, say, 2000 lines of code. I
don't just mean a FORTH program, I mean a complete FORTH
operating system, environment and language. You could boot
such a FORTH on a bare PC and it would come up with a prompt
where you could start doing useful work. The FORTH you have
here isn't minimal and uses a Linux process as its 'base PC'
(both for the purposes of making it a good tutorial). It's
possible to completely understand the system. Who can say they
completely understand how Linux works, or gcc?
horst:
Why then would you want to learn FORTH? There are several very
good reasons. First and foremost, there is a bright side to
this minimality. Not counting the comment lines you can have
a complete FORTH in 768 lines of code. I don't just mean a
FORTH program, I mean a complete FORTH operating system,
environment and language. You could boot such a FORTH on a
bare PC and it would come up with a prompt where you could
start doing useful work. The FORTH you have here is equally
minimal, as long as you take for granted the Linux environment
where it lives. (requiring you to use a bare pc would not make
for a good tutorial) It's possible to completely understand
the system. Who can say they completely understand how Linux
works, or gcc?
Comments welcome. Trying to make a working jonesforth look alike
today. The text will be more work, I presume.
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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-04 11:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7x7gi97msd.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #23175 |
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: > What do we want? The enticement of jonesforth but > - ISO compatibility (for all words with an ISO name that is) > - no words in assembler if Forth is feasible > - one file, Forth coded in assembler Is that basically what eforth is?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-06 15:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <JJWdnUypFu5rby3MnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #23175 |
Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > Remember we discussed jonesforth at the German convention? > I take up the challenge to make a similar forth. > > What do we want? The enticement of jonesforth but > - ISO compatibility (for all words with an ISO name that is) > - no words in assembler if Forth is feasible Erm, why? Are you going to write : - negate + ; ? > - one file, Forth coded in assembler Why? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-06 13:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xzjv3ge15.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #23234 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
> Erm, why? Are you going to write
> : - negate + ;
http://www.calcentral.com/~forth/forth/eforth/e4.src/EFORTH.SHTML has:
: + ( n n -- n ) ( 6.1.0120 )( 0x1E ) UM+ DROP ;
: INVERT ( n -- n ) ( 6.1.1720 )( 0x26 ) D# -1 XOR ;
: NEGATE ( n -- n ) ( 6.1.1910 )( 0x2C ) INVERT D# 1 + ;
: - ( n n -- n ) ( 6.1.0160 )( 0x1F ) NEGATE + ;
UM+, DROP, and XOR are CODE words. I guess D# is a metacompiler primitive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-07 12:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <korglr$jb0$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #23238 |
Paul Rubin wrote: > ... > I guess D# is a metacompiler primitive. D# interprets the next word as a number in base 10. H# B# do hex and binary respectively. It's an easy and portable way of getting the forth interpreter to recognize different classes of number. I use F# in my "finput" demo to permit interpretation of floating-point numbers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-07 14:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <51b1efd2$0$6358$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #23234 |
In article <JJWdnUypFu5rby3MnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@supernews.com>, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> Remember we discussed jonesforth at the German convention? >> I take up the challenge to make a similar forth. >> >> What do we want? The enticement of jonesforth but >> - ISO compatibility (for all words with an ISO name that is) >> - no words in assembler if Forth is feasible > >Erm, why? Are you going to write > >: - negate + ; Hell no! ``-'' translates directly to assembler. Only fundamentalist take such detours. > >? > >> - one file, Forth coded in assembler > >Why? Last I wanted to have factor. For that I needed perl and for that I needed gcc in source. The latter alone amounted to one Gbyte. In this time and age there is just one reassurement to counter that: one file as in "one file no includes excepts as implicit in the assembler system." like so >fasm albertjonesmyyoutforth.fas >albertjonesmyyoutforth 1 2 + . 3 OK Anyway, it is the starting point. > >Andrew. 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]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-07 08:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xfvwund59.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #23273 |
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: > In this time and age there is just one reassurement to counter that: > one file > as in "one file no includes excepts as implicit in the assembler system." But now you need an assembler. Unix systems these days are more likely to come with Perl than an assembler. Why not write completely in Forth, and bootstrap with something like gforth? > The starting point of jonesforth and its seduction is utmost simplicity. Well, it was 1) very heavily commented, and 2) started from bare assembler with no Forthish capabilities at all. For newbies, the comment density probably mattered more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-07 17:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <51b212a5$0$620$e4fe514c@dreader34.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #23278 |
In article <7xfvwund59.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: >> In this time and age there is just one reassurement to counter that: >> one file >> as in "one file no includes excepts as implicit in the assembler system." > >But now you need an assembler. Unix systems these days are more likely >to come with Perl than an assembler. > >Why not write completely in Forth, and bootstrap with something like >gforth? This is *not* just another "forth-in-assembler". 1 We have gone over this a million times. You can't write '+' "completely" in Forth. 2 The build process using fasm is so much more simple that it is almost incredible. 3 We want transparency and simplicity, the feeling of being absolutely and totally in command, of understanding the very last bit. gforth is tributary to c-czars, if not held hostage. This is addressing the people that Jones reached by using the means that appeal to those people. That may be filling a niche rather than making the best Forth possible, and then having endless discussions about what makes the best Forth, as if that doesn't depend. > >> The starting point of jonesforth and its seduction is utmost simplicity. > >Well, it was 1) very heavily commented, and 2) started from bare >assembler with no Forthish capabilities at all. For newbies, the >comment density probably mattered more. That is not a contradiction. Of course it is about the fact that jones was a newbie and documented his every step of the way. What I want is a good starting point for the documentation by having even a simpler Forth. Then I add some ANSI awareness such that people can make the step to more serious work with Forth more easily. 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]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-07 11:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xk3m5vl60.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #23279 |
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>>Why not write completely in Forth, and bootstrap with something like
>>gforth?
> 1 We have gone over this a million times. You can't write '+' "completely"
> in Forth.
By "completely in Forth" I just mean the traditional way, where the
assembler is written in Forth and is part of the Forth system, and it's
bootstrapped from another Forth. Then you write + as a CODE word, in Forth.
> 2 The build process using fasm is so much more simple that it is
> almost incredible.
$ fasm
bash: fasm: command not found...
$ sudo yum install fasm
...
No package fasm available.
> gforth is tributary to c-czars, if not held hostage.
What about fasm? Not the same? Gforth and C are at least available in
most Linux distros.
OK, I just found fasm online (http://flatassembler.net/) and it's
written in itself, which means you may have to start with a binary, or
else port it to some other assembler, i.e. now your Forth depends on two
assemblers.
> 3 We want transparency and simplicity, the feeling of being absolutely
> and totally in command, of understanding the very last bit.
I'd certainly expect a self-hosted Forth to achieve that better than one
dependent on an external assembler, once the bootstrap phase is
completed. It may even be ok to bootstrap from something like Python.
I don't claim to have examined every detail of eforth, but I was
impressed by the readability of the parts that I looked at. It helped
that it was Forth with very little assembler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-07 17:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kotirp$9k8$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #23279 |
"Albert van der Horst" <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:51b212a5$0$620$e4fe514c@dreader34.news.xs4all.nl... > What I want is a good starting point for the documentation > by having even a simpler Forth. I just posted a link to an "even simpler Forth". What was wrong with it? You can implement '+' as code if you wish instead of the convoluted code there.... What's wrong with eForth for that matter? What is wrong the half-dozen or so other Forths that start with 30 to 55 code words (or primitives or low-level words)? Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-07 23:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <51b266e4$0$6084$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #23291 |
In article <kotirp$9k8$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnotq.cpm> wrote: >"Albert van der Horst" <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote in >message news:51b212a5$0$620$e4fe514c@dreader34.news.xs4all.nl... > >> What I want is a good starting point for the documentation >> by having even a simpler Forth. > >I just posted a link to an "even simpler Forth". What was wrong >with it? You can implement '+' as code if you wish instead of >the convoluted code there.... > >What's wrong with eForth for that matter? What is wrong the >half-dozen or so other Forths that start with 30 to 55 code words >(or primitives or low-level words)? Okay, now take a very careful read of jonesforth and ask yourself why a professor asks his students to make a modification of that particular Forth, while c.l.f is complaining that Forth is banned from the academia. > > >Rod Pemberton 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]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-11 14:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2013Jun11.165956@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #23278 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes:
>> In this time and age there is just one reassurement to counter that:
>> one file
>> as in "one file no includes excepts as implicit in the assembler system."
>
>But now you need an assembler. Unix systems these days are more likely
>to come with Perl than an assembler.
Most Unix systems these days use GCC as C compiler, and GCC does not
work without an assembler. Maybe more people have Perl installed than
GCC; popcon says: 151316 (99.63%) have perl installed, 111503 (73.42%)
have binutils installed.
So, if JonesForth was about ease of installation, basing it on Perl
would be better than basing it on assembly language. But it's about
learning and understanding, and starting from the bottom up; that is a
good approach in my experience*. If you start with assembly language,
you learn a number of concepts useful for Forth, and you will
appreciate the benefits Forth gives; if you start with Perl, why build
or use Forth?
>Why not write completely in Forth, and bootstrap with something like
>gforth?
Gforth has a much smaller installed base than assembler; but more
importantly, this requires to understand using Forth first, and then
understanding meta-compilation in addition.
While learning to "use Forth" first is the approach advocated by
Elizabeth Rather, Forth has always been an interesting language for
those who want to understand how to implement it. And if you approach
Forth from that direction, then the JonesForth approach is the way to
go.
Sure, once they understand it, they notice that the assembly form is
not the most flexible source form for Forth, and will arrive at the
idea of meta-compilation themselves. But for most doing all of this
in one step is too big a leap.
*) My "Introduction to Computer Science" course was great, and it
started with transistors, went through ALUs to assembly language, then
higher-level languages and operating systems.
- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-11 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kp7i49$kn5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #23434 |
On 2013-06-11, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: > So, if JonesForth was about ease of installation, basing it on Perl > would be better than basing it on assembly language. But it's about > learning and understanding, and starting from the bottom up; that is a > good approach in my experience*. If you start with assembly language, > you learn a number of concepts useful for Forth, and you will > appreciate the benefits Forth gives; if you start with Perl, why build > or use Forth? Indeed. If you start with Perl you'll put off anyone who might have been interested from ever looking at Forth again ;-) > *) My "Introduction to Computer Science" course was great, and it > started with transistors, went through ALUs to assembly language, then > higher-level languages and operating systems. The problem now on Intel is the significant ABI difference between 32 and 64 bit. And then there's the issue of gcc vs. Intel vs. MASM etc. Even assembly language isn't a simple matter. And then if you don't use libc there's the issue of which syscalls you use and it won't be portable across the range of Linux/UNIX/Windows. 32 bit Linux as it was first presented is probably still the best choice although I think most people prefer the human-looking Intel syntax over the machine readable "gas" syntax. Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-12 08:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jvGdnW-R26tN7yXMnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #23442 |
Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> wrote: > > 32 bit Linux as it was first presented is probably still the best choice > although I think most people prefer the human-looking Intel syntax over the > machine readable "gas" syntax. Eh? Heavens, no! And BTW, it's AT&T UNIX syntax; nothing to do with GNU as, which implements it for compatibility. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-12 13:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kp9uei$rh2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #23488 |
On 2013-06-12, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> wrote: >> >> 32 bit Linux as it was first presented is probably still the best choice >> although I think most people prefer the human-looking Intel syntax over the >> machine readable "gas" syntax. > > Eh? Heavens, no! And BTW, it's AT&T UNIX syntax; nothing to do with > GNU as, which implements it for compatibility. Yes, yes, we know. The UNIX snobs at AT&T knew better than Intel. After all Intel only designed the chips and wrote the first assemblers blah blah blah. Whatever the UNIX snobs used on their PDP *must* be the way to go on Intel especially now that PDPs are all but gone and Intel's been the leading desktop arch for the last thirty years or so. GNU as and compatibility? With what? Itself? Yes, it was designed (loosely) to process the output of their C compiler not for humans to write code in. It's the worst of all known x86 assemblers. Nobody should use it as an example for anything except what not to do when it comes to designing an assembler... Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-12 14:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m_WdneHcl5bKVCXMnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #23489 |
Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> wrote: > On 2013-06-12, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >> Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> wrote: >>> >>> 32 bit Linux as it was first presented is probably still the best choice >>> although I think most people prefer the human-looking Intel syntax over the >>> machine readable "gas" syntax. >> >> Eh? Heavens, no! And BTW, it's AT&T UNIX syntax; nothing to do with >> GNU as, which implements it for compatibility. > > Yes, yes, we know. The UNIX snobs at AT&T knew better than Intel. After all > Intel only designed the chips and wrote the first assemblers blah blah blah. Well, yeah. > Whatever the UNIX snobs used on their PDP *must* be the way to go on > Intel especially now that PDPs are all but gone and Intel's been the > leading desktop arch for the last thirty years or so. > > GNU as and compatibility? With what? UNIX. > Itself? Yes, it was designed (loosely) to process the output of > their C compiler not for humans to write code in. Eh? Where do you get this weird stuff from? > It's the worst of all known x86 assemblers. Nobody should use it as > an example for anything except what not to do when it comes to > designing an assembler... I'm mystified. AT&T syntax is much simpler and doesn't have all that WORD PTR blah stuff. Why would anyone want Intel syntax? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-13 08:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2013Jun13.102407@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #23505 |
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>I'm mystified. AT&T syntax is much simpler and doesn't have all that
>WORD PTR blah stuff.
Yes, I find it more understandable, too. Apparently it's a matter of
taste. As to why the AT&T Unix people did it: Most Forths have their
own assembly language syntax, so why not Unix, especially given the
complexity of the Intel syntax.
> Why would anyone want Intel syntax?
The argument order of CMP is counterintuitive in AT&T syntax if you
then check for less than etc. I think they should have kept the
argument order consistent with the Intel syntax.
Concerning the claim that destination last is a convention in assembly
languages, DEC assembly languages have that (and that's probably why
AT&T syntax has it), but, e.g., IBM S/360 has destination first
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Basic_assembly_language>. MIPS and
PowerPC are destination first, SPARC and 68000 are destination last,
but they all came after Intel syntax.
- 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 2013: http://www.euroforth.org/ef13/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-12 14:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <51b8831b$0$6073$e4fe514c@dreader36.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #23488 |
In article <jvGdnW-R26tN7yXMnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@supernews.com>, Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> wrote: >> >> 32 bit Linux as it was first presented is probably still the best choice >> although I think most people prefer the human-looking Intel syntax over the >> machine readable "gas" syntax. > >Eh? Heavens, no! And BTW, it's AT&T UNIX syntax; nothing to do with >GNU as, which implements it for compatibility. Intel deviates from the convention in assemblers with its destination source order in operands. It is the first time I hear some one refer to that as human. It may be a great pain for us who switch between assemblers all the time, but it is firmly entrenched in the Intel world. An educational Forth in assembler has no choice but to use the Intel order. Even if I were to use gas for lina/jones I would require the Intel order, which is accomodated by gas for some time now. (Around 2000 I had this terrible sed script to reverse the order of operands from my generic source to generate gas assembly code. What a relief to be able to scrap that!) > >Andrew. 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]
| From | Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-12 15:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kpa2o7$8gc$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #23490 |
On 2013-06-12, Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > In article <jvGdnW-R26tN7yXMnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@supernews.com>, > Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: >>Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> wrote: >>> >>> 32 bit Linux as it was first presented is probably still the best choice >>> although I think most people prefer the human-looking Intel syntax over the >>> machine readable "gas" syntax. >> >>Eh? Heavens, no! And BTW, it's AT&T UNIX syntax; nothing to do with >>GNU as, which implements it for compatibility. > > Intel deviates from the convention in assemblers with its destination > source order in operands. There is no such convention. And as you would expect a correct and useful assembler exposes the ISA it was designed to run on. Intel's encoding is reflected in the choice of op dest, src. Why anyone would intentionally bass-ackwards an assembler is hard to figure. For once Microsoft seems to have done the right thing as well ;-) > It is the first time I hear some one refer to that as human. If you want to be isolated from the chip you're working on then by all means, the AT&T/gnu "compatability" syntax helps quite a bit. Otherwise Intel ought to know what they're doing when it comes to writing assemblers and assembly language for their chips don't you think? Bill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-06-13 01:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <51b92307$0$6339$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #23493 |
In article <kpa2o7$8gc$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Richards <billrich@gmx.com> wrote: >On 2013-06-12, Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: <SNIP> >> >> Intel deviates from the convention in assemblers with its destination >> source order in operands. > >There is no such convention. And as you would expect a correct and useful Care to name a few processors besides Intel's that use dst,src order of operands? > >Bill 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]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web