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

Groups > comp.sys.apple2.programmer > #238

Re: Acme 0.94 in the works?

Show all headers | View raw

Egan Ford wrote:
> On 3/22/12 11:45 AM, Michael J. Mahon wrote:
> 
>> Egan Ford wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/20/12 5:06 PM, Daniel Kruszyna wrote:
>>>
>>>> Egan Ford<datajerk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What other 65816 cross-assemblers are others using for IIgs
>>>>> development?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wrote one to make TreeHugger. Do you like Forth-style assemblers?
>>>>
>>>> -- Daniel
>>>>
>>>
>>> I like Forth. Cannot say I 'like' or dislike Forth-style assemblers,
>>> but I'll give it a shot.
>>
>>
>> You're already unusual--most people fall into either the "love it"
>> or "hate it" categories with regard to Forth. ;-)
>>
>> -michael
>>
>> DMS Drummer--an Apple II rhythm section!
>> Home page: http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/
>>
>> "The wastebasket is our most important design
>> tool--and it's seriously underused."
> 
> 
> I lean to love it.  Being raised on RPN calculators, Forth seems 
> natural.  RPN/Forth thinking also comes in handy when outputting 
> Postscript. :-)
> 
> Here is the last Apple Forth (MAF) program I wrote:
> 
> http://jerkwerks.com/misc/apple_forth_pi.html
> 
> Forth is quite portable.  I originally wrote that program with gforth, 
> then ported to the HP 71B, then the //e.  And Forth is fast.

Forth *is* fast compared to the alternatives.  Threaded code is a
nice space/time tradeoff.  And it's hard to beat the simplicity of
the Forth execution model (except, maybe, 6502 assembly ;-).

There's no question, though, that RPN and the implicit stack operands
make readability of Forth programs problematic.  You have to be in
"Forth execution mode" in your mind as you read to see what's being
operated on.

Another language that had this characteristic was APL.  Amazingly
succinct programs that did wondrous computations, but demanded of
any reader great mental elasticity.

I've seen both languages referred to as "write only".  ;-)

> Lately I've started loving 6502 ASM.  After about 4 months of playing 
> with it, I think it will be my only 6502 programming language.  But I do 
> miss the Forth stack and stack control.  It shouldn't be difficult to 
> implement in 6502 for "the stack".

I also enjoy programming in 6502 assembly.  It's a cozy, straightforward
world, and you can go as fast as the machine allows.  ;-)

Like Forth, it encourages one to write in terms of small subroutines.
Unlike Forth, almost all the context relevant to a chunk of code is
in just three registers, so it's pretty easy on readers.

And it provides complete freedom in data structures, allowing optimal
algorithms.  I don't know any other language that would let me store
an array of 16-bit numbers as two arrays of 8-bit halves--and get the
benefit of so doing--without looking like Greek.  ;-)

-michael

NadaNet 3.1 for Apple II parallel computing!
Home page:  http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."

Back to comp.sys.apple2.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar

Thread

Acme 0.94 in the works? BLuRry <brendan.robert@gmail.com> - 2012-03-14 09:42 -0700
  Re: Acme 0.94 in the works? Egan Ford <datajerk@gmail.com> - 2012-03-18 13:00 -0600
    Re: Acme 0.94 in the works? Daniel Kruszyna <dan@krue.net> - 2012-03-20 23:06 +0000
      Re: Acme 0.94 in the works? Egan Ford <datajerk@gmail.com> - 2012-03-21 11:36 -0600
        Re: Acme 0.94 in the works? "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2012-03-22 10:45 -0700
          Re: Acme 0.94 in the works? Egan Ford <datajerk@gmail.com> - 2012-03-22 12:27 -0600
            Re: Acme 0.94 in the works? "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> - 2012-03-22 12:33 -0700

csiph-web