Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #153085 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-19 11:57 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-24 07:03 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 176 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-19 11:57 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 05:05 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-20 13:57 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Daiyu Hurst <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 21:26 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-25 10:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-25 18:13 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-25 21:35 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:28 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-26 17:46 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 17:49 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:29 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-21 11:45 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2015-10-21 12:34 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-21 14:36 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-22 09:38 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-22 11:07 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-22 11:35 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-22 12:26 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:52 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-23 23:16 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-24 00:21 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-24 13:23 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-24 15:25 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-24 22:37 +0200
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-25 15:53 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-25 16:08 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:08 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-26 16:24 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-24 16:26 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-25 16:33 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:03 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 06:49 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:02 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:18 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:28 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:39 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-26 16:25 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:36 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-26 17:41 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:26 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-27 22:47 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-27 12:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-27 09:03 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:38 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-27 08:43 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:43 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org (Hank) - 2015-10-28 19:05 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-28 16:08 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 05:43 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:37 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-27 18:48 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-28 12:58 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 08:15 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:37 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:58 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 12:19 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-28 12:58 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 11:08 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-28 18:46 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-28 17:58 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-28 22:04 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-28 17:39 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-29 00:13 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 22:52 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-29 15:54 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 16:47 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 12:04 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 05:54 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 07:21 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 16:48 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 14:47 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 15:09 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 17:19 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-29 18:18 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-29 18:02 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 11:28 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:42 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-29 14:49 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:57 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-30 08:39 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 13:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-31 09:36 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-31 09:47 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:14 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 16:38 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:58 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-02 10:05 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:23 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:44 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-30 12:25 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 13:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 16:32 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-01 11:03 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-01 12:48 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 07:16 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-03 12:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 08:07 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-04 13:52 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 08:52 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-05 07:48 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 06:31 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-02 07:34 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-01 23:55 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-02 07:40 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-02 14:59 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:08 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 13:15 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 16:47 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 07:29 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-29 14:47 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:53 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-29 15:24 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-28 13:20 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org (Hank) - 2015-10-28 18:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 12:47 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-28 15:46 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 12:50 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:33 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:55 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:18 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 19:34 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:43 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 20:04 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 13:28 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-30 16:43 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:37 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-11-03 06:56 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:47 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 14:14 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-30 20:50 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 16:05 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-28 15:52 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 12:29 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:51 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-26 09:05 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:44 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 10:28 -0700
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-26 17:19 +0000
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-26 17:02 -0400
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 19:40 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:34 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-26 21:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-27 07:00 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2015-10-27 10:15 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-27 20:09 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 06:42 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 15:22 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 15:23 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-27 16:09 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2015-10-25 19:31 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:03 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-26 13:10 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 06:45 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-24 07:03 +0000
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-19 11:57 -0700 |
| Subject | the FORTH computer language |
| Message-ID | <8586b234-ff9e-4fa6-8070-6dfe3df64124@googlegroups.com> |
Many computer hobbyists experimented with FORTH. Bitsavers has some manuals on it from CalTech: "Rapid acceptance of minicomputers for interactive data acquisition and system control has created a need for matching software systems. High level languages like Fortran, Algol, or PL/l are not normallv effective in environments with limited memory and peripheral devices. Even when these languages can be used, they are designed for batch processing and usually lack features needed for direct interaction with the operator. By default many programmers have been forced to use assembly language. This is efficient for small programs but there can be great practical difficulties in writing and maintaining larger assembly programs. "The Forth system meets the problem described above; it provides a flexible programming system for minicomputers of moderate size. A machine with 8K 16-bit words and at least one mass storage device can make effective use of Forth. Most new laboratory computers will have at least this size; programming difficulties with smaller machines increasingly outweigh the falling cost of memory and peripherals. Forth also has important capabilities for the designer of microcomputer systems. Microcomputer development systems typically have some sort of floppy disk storage and so may run the full, minicomputer style Forth. Systems incorporating microcomputers, however, often have minimal peripheral devices. Forth techniques are useful in these cases as a means of writing memory-efficient code and of implementing conversational interaction with the user." for full manual please see: http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/caltech/ovro/Caltech-OVRO_Forth_Manual_Jun78.pdf Also at CalTech (in the same directory) was the following about a radio telescope: "Research carried on under NSF Grant AST73-04908 was directed toward the design, construction, and testing of a prototype 10.4-meter diameter radio telescope to be used for millimeter-wave radio astronomy. If successful, the prototype instrument was also expected to serve as the first of three proposed telescopes to be deployed at Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO) for aperture-synthesis radio interferometry at millimeter wavelengths. Very high goals of surface accuracy and stability of the reflector (dish) were set, with the intention of assuring essentially perfect (diffraction-limited) reflecting surfaces for wavelengths as short as 1 millimeter or even less." http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/caltech/ovro/Leighton_Robert-AST_73-04908.pdf
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mentificium@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 05:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f13cc4d-9501-4a37-b121-ca702c322699@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153085 |
FORTH is THE computer language for AI and robotics, not to mention the Technological Singularity brought to you by the Forth community at http://www.reddit.com/r/Forth and elsewhere. E.g., http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Mind.Forth in English; http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=307824.307853 ACM review; http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Wotan Ai in German; http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GX2B8F0 "AI In German" ATM -- https://groups.google.com/d/msg/net.ai/IJpSNRGEE7w/70BtsqcpRDoJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-20 13:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510201356170.15672@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #153085 |
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote: > Many computer hobbyists experimented with FORTH. Bitsavers has some manuals on it from CalTech: > > "Rapid acceptance of minicomputers for interactive data > acquisition and system control has created a need for > matching software systems. High level languages like > Fortran, Algol, or PL/l are not normallv effective in > environments with limited memory and peripheral devices. > Even when these languages can be used, they are designed for > batch processing and usually lack features needed for direct > interaction with the operator. By default many programmers > have been forced to use assembly language. This is > efficient for small programs but there can be great > practical difficulties in writing and maintaining larger > assembly programs. > > "The Forth system meets the problem described above; it > provides a flexible programming system for minicomputers of > moderate size. A machine with 8K 16-bit words and at least > one mass storage device can make effective use of Forth. > Most new laboratory computers will have at least this size; > programming difficulties with smaller machines increasingly > outweigh the falling cost of memory and peripherals. > > Forth also has important capabilities for the designer > of microcomputer systems. Microcomputer development systems > typically have some sort of floppy disk storage and so may > run the full, minicomputer style Forth. Systems > incorporating microcomputers, however, often have minimal > peripheral devices. Forth techniques are useful in these > cases as a means of writing memory-efficient code and of > implementing conversational interaction with the user." > > for full manual please see: > http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/caltech/ovro/Caltech-OVRO_Forth_Manual_Jun78.pdf > > Do they have the issue of Byte that was devoted to FORTH? FOr many of us, that was where we first heard about it, I think it was 1980, the annual language issue was August. > Also at CalTech (in the same directory) was the following about a radio > telescope: > > "Research carried on under NSF Grant AST73-04908 was directed toward the > design, construction, and testing of a prototype 10.4-meter diameter radio > telescope to be used for millimeter-wave radio astronomy. If successful, > the prototype instrument was also expected to serve as the first of three > proposed telescopes to be deployed at Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO) > for aperture-synthesis radio interferometry at millimeter wavelengths. Very > high goals of surface accuracy and stability of the reflector (dish) were > set, with the intention of assuring essentially perfect (diffraction-limited) > reflecting surfaces for wavelengths as short as 1 millimeter or even less." > > http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/caltech/ovro/Leighton_Robert-AST_73-04908.pdf > That's not a surprise. Charles Moore was in astronomy when he created FORTH, so it probably gets greater use in that field than some other places. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daiyu Hurst <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 21:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e00cf276-0501-4e97-b0a2-920cb908a7f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153127 |
On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 1:56:00 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote: > Do they have the issue of Byte that was devoted to FORTH? FOr many of us, > that was where we first heard about it, I think it was 1980, the annual > language issue was August. https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1980-08
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 10:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0ia4i$aeh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153316 |
"Daiyu Hurst" <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e00cf276-0501-4e97-b0a2-920cb908a7f5@googlegroups.com... > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 1:56:00 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote: > >> Do they have the issue of Byte that was devoted to FORTH? FOr many of >> us, >> that was where we first heard about it, I think it was 1980, the annual >> language issue was August. > > https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1980-08 Also recommended from that time is the book, "Starting FORTH" by Leo Brodie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 18:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0jniu$r5q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153316 |
"Daiyu Hurst" <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e00cf276-0501-4e97-b0a2-920cb908a7f5@googlegroups.com... > On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 1:56:00 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote: > >> Do they have the issue of Byte that was devoted to FORTH? FOr many of >> us, >> that was where we first heard about it, I think it was 1980, the annual >> language issue was August. > > https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1980-08 IMHO there is another archive that contains *smaller*, better-scanned versions of BYTE: http://malus.exotica.org.uk/~buzz/byte/pdf/ I believe you can find the Forth issue (August 1980) in this last archive also. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 21:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510252133090.26143@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #153332 |
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote: > "Daiyu Hurst" <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:e00cf276-0501-4e97-b0a2-920cb908a7f5@googlegroups.com... >> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 1:56:00 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote: >> >>> Do they have the issue of Byte that was devoted to FORTH? FOr many of us, >>> that was where we first heard about it, I think it was 1980, the annual >>> language issue was August. >> >> https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1980-08 > > IMHO there is another archive that contains *smaller*, better-scanned > versions of BYTE: > > http://malus.exotica.org.uk/~buzz/byte/pdf/ > > > I believe you can find the Forth issue (August 1980) in this last archive > also. > They ran those annual language issues (not that everything was related to the specified language) for a long time, and certainly for those unfamiliar with the language of the issue, they were good introductions. They covered it from a variety of angles, something for someone who knew the language but also things for someone who'd never heard of it. The Smalltalk issue, I forget which year, probably still stands as a good intro. Same with the Logo issue. The C issue actually carried over to the next issue, and ended up covering Unix a bit too. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 14:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0lup8$e1r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153335 |
"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510252133090.26143@darkstar.example.org... > On Sun, 25 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote: > >> "Daiyu Hurst" <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:e00cf276-0501-4e97-b0a2-920cb908a7f5@googlegroups.com... >>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 1:56:00 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote: >>> >>>> Do they have the issue of Byte that was devoted to FORTH? FOr many of >>>> us, >>>> that was where we first heard about it, I think it was 1980, the annual >>>> language issue was August. >>> >>> https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1980-08 >> >> IMHO there is another archive that contains *smaller*, better-scanned >> versions of BYTE: >> >> http://malus.exotica.org.uk/~buzz/byte/pdf/ >> >> >> I believe you can find the Forth issue (August 1980) in this last archive >> also. >> > They ran those annual language issues (not that everything was related to > the specified language) for a long time, and certainly for those > unfamiliar with the language of the issue, they were good introductions. > They covered it from a variety of angles, something for someone who knew > the language but also things for someone who'd never heard of it. > > The Smalltalk issue, I forget which year, probably still stands as a good > intro. Same with the Logo issue. > > The C issue actually carried over to the next issue, and ended up covering > Unix a bit too. > Here is a list of the "language issues" of BYTE magazine: August 1977 -- APL August 1978 -- Pascal August 1979 -- LISP August 1980 -- Forth August 1981 -- Smalltalk August 1982 -- Logo August 1983 -- C September 1983 -- ... continuation of one C and one Unix article from August October 1983 -- UNIX (just threw that in) August 1984 -- Modula-2 August 1985 -- Declarative Languages August 1986 -- Object-Oriented Languages August 1987 -- Prolog August 1988 -- C Language in Depth This seems to be the end of the "language issues" of BYTE... -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 17:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510261745230.28044@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #153354 |
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote: > "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message > news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510252133090.26143@darkstar.example.org... >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote: >> >>> "Daiyu Hurst" <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:e00cf276-0501-4e97-b0a2-920cb908a7f5@googlegroups.com... >>>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 1:56:00 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote: >>>> >>>>> Do they have the issue of Byte that was devoted to FORTH? FOr many of >>>>> us, >>>>> that was where we first heard about it, I think it was 1980, the annual >>>>> language issue was August. >>>> >>>> https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1980-08 >>> >>> IMHO there is another archive that contains *smaller*, better-scanned >>> versions of BYTE: >>> >>> http://malus.exotica.org.uk/~buzz/byte/pdf/ >>> >>> >>> I believe you can find the Forth issue (August 1980) in this last archive >>> also. >>> >> They ran those annual language issues (not that everything was related to >> the specified language) for a long time, and certainly for those unfamiliar >> with the language of the issue, they were good introductions. They covered >> it from a variety of angles, something for someone who knew the language >> but also things for someone who'd never heard of it. >> >> The Smalltalk issue, I forget which year, probably still stands as a good >> intro. Same with the Logo issue. >> >> The C issue actually carried over to the next issue, and ended up covering >> Unix a bit too. >> > > Here is a list of the "language issues" of BYTE magazine: > > August 1977 -- APL > August 1978 -- Pascal > August 1979 -- LISP > August 1980 -- Forth > August 1981 -- Smalltalk > August 1982 -- Logo > August 1983 -- C > September 1983 -- ... continuation of one C and one Unix article from August > October 1983 -- UNIX (just threw that in) > August 1984 -- Modula-2 > August 1985 -- Declarative Languages > August 1986 -- Object-Oriented Languages > August 1987 -- Prolog > August 1988 -- C Language in Depth > > This seems to be the end of the "language issues" of BYTE... > That sounds right. They dropped it around the time they dropped Steve Ciarcia's column. THere wasn't a sudden falloff, I just remember a vague point where suddenly the magazine wasn't worth getting on a regular basis. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 17:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <245744341.467588771.893052.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153367 |
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote: > >> "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message >> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510252133090.26143@darkstar.example.org... >>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote: >>> >>>> "Daiyu Hurst" <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:e00cf276-0501-4e97-b0a2-920cb908a7f5@googlegroups.com... >>>>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 1:56:00 PM UTC-4, Michael Black wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Do they have the issue of Byte that was devoted to FORTH? FOr many of >>>>>> us, >>>>>> that was where we first heard about it, I think it was 1980, the annual >>>>>> language issue was August. >>>>> >>>>> https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1980-08 >>>> >>>> IMHO there is another archive that contains *smaller*, better-scanned >>>> versions of BYTE: >>>> >>>> http://malus.exotica.org.uk/~buzz/byte/pdf/ >>>> >>>> >>>> I believe you can find the Forth issue (August 1980) in this last archive >>>> also. >>>> >>> They ran those annual language issues (not that everything was related to >>> the specified language) for a long time, and certainly for those unfamiliar >>> with the language of the issue, they were good introductions. They covered >>> it from a variety of angles, something for someone who knew the language >>> but also things for someone who'd never heard of it. >>> >>> The Smalltalk issue, I forget which year, probably still stands as a good >>> intro. Same with the Logo issue. >>> >>> The C issue actually carried over to the next issue, and ended up covering >>> Unix a bit too. >>> >> >> Here is a list of the "language issues" of BYTE magazine: >> >> August 1977 -- APL >> August 1978 -- Pascal >> August 1979 -- LISP >> August 1980 -- Forth >> August 1981 -- Smalltalk >> August 1982 -- Logo >> August 1983 -- C >> September 1983 -- ... continuation of one C and one Unix article from August >> October 1983 -- UNIX (just threw that in) >> August 1984 -- Modula-2 >> August 1985 -- Declarative Languages >> August 1986 -- Object-Oriented Languages >> August 1987 -- Prolog >> August 1988 -- C Language in Depth >> >> This seems to be the end of the "language issues" of BYTE... >> > That sounds right. They dropped it around the time they dropped Steve > Ciarcia's column. THere wasn't a sudden falloff, I just remember a vague > point where suddenly the magazine wasn't worth getting on a regular basis. > I used to really enjoy getting each month's issue - I'd read it from cover to cover. Then it became reviews of software for the IBM PC rather than less common hardware plus programming-related stuff. When I let my subscription lapse they called me and I told them so, although I believe I was more diplomatic than saying something like "your magazine is full of crap." -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 15:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0omnm$rg6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153368 |
"Peter Flass" <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:245744341.467588771.893052.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org... > Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote: >> >>> "Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message >>> news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1510252133090.26143@darkstar.example.org... >>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Daiyu Hurst" <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:e00cf276-0501-4e97-b0a2-920cb908a7f5@googlegroups.com... >>>>>> On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 at 1:56:00 PM UTC-4, Michael Black >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Do they have the issue of Byte that was devoted to FORTH? FOr many >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> us, >>>>>>> that was where we first heard about it, I think it was 1980, the >>>>>>> annual >>>>>>> language issue was August. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1980-08 >>>>> >>>>> IMHO there is another archive that contains *smaller*, better-scanned >>>>> versions of BYTE: >>>>> >>>>> http://malus.exotica.org.uk/~buzz/byte/pdf/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I believe you can find the Forth issue (August 1980) in this last >>>>> archive >>>>> also. >>>>> >>>> They ran those annual language issues (not that everything was related >>>> to >>>> the specified language) for a long time, and certainly for those >>>> unfamiliar >>>> with the language of the issue, they were good introductions. They >>>> covered >>>> it from a variety of angles, something for someone who knew the >>>> language >>>> but also things for someone who'd never heard of it. >>>> >>>> The Smalltalk issue, I forget which year, probably still stands as a >>>> good >>>> intro. Same with the Logo issue. >>>> >>>> The C issue actually carried over to the next issue, and ended up >>>> covering >>>> Unix a bit too. >>>> >>> >>> Here is a list of the "language issues" of BYTE magazine: >>> >>> August 1977 -- APL >>> August 1978 -- Pascal >>> August 1979 -- LISP >>> August 1980 -- Forth >>> August 1981 -- Smalltalk >>> August 1982 -- Logo >>> August 1983 -- C >>> September 1983 -- ... continuation of one C and one Unix article from >>> August >>> October 1983 -- UNIX (just threw that in) >>> August 1984 -- Modula-2 >>> August 1985 -- Declarative Languages >>> August 1986 -- Object-Oriented Languages >>> August 1987 -- Prolog >>> August 1988 -- C Language in Depth >>> >>> This seems to be the end of the "language issues" of BYTE... >>> >> That sounds right. They dropped it around the time they dropped Steve >> Ciarcia's column. THere wasn't a sudden falloff, I just remember a vague >> point where suddenly the magazine wasn't worth getting on a regular >> basis. >> > > I used to really enjoy getting each month's issue - I'd read it from cover > to cover. Then it became reviews of software for the IBM PC rather than > less common hardware plus programming-related stuff. When I let my > subscription lapse they called me and I told them so, although I believe > I > was more diplomatic than saying something like "your magazine is full of > crap." > Peter, when someone dumps a load of crap right on top of your head, I think you are *entitled* to tell that someone -- in *no* uncertain terms -- that all this is CRAP!!!!! IMHO. -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0okse47sl@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153367 |
On 2015-10-26, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, Charles Richmond wrote: > >> This seems to be the end of the "language issues" of BYTE... > > That sounds right. They dropped it around the time they dropped Steve > Ciarcia's column. THere wasn't a sudden falloff, I just remember a vague > point where suddenly the magazine wasn't worth getting on a regular basis. And then there came the point where it became Yet Another Wintel Magazine, at which point it was no longer worth getting it at all. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 11:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n07q8l$vas$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153085 |
<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message news:8586b234-ff9e-4fa6-8070-6dfe3df64124@googlegroups.com... > Many computer hobbyists experimented with FORTH. Bitsavers has some > manuals on it from CalTech: The crucial bit is hobbyist, and, associated with it, the highy paid electronic enginner dabbling as an extremely expensive and overpaid untrained programmer. FORTH is not some magical solution, for it is largely the instruction set of the English Electric KDF-9, details of which were in the professional journals BEFORE Charles Moore came up with FORTH. Programming in FORTH is programming in assembly language and any real computing has long set aside such a low level. YMMV
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 12:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn2f1ip.rm.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153139 |
On 2015-10-21, gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: > <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message > news:8586b234-ff9e-4fa6-8070-6dfe3df64124@googlegroups.com... >> Many computer hobbyists experimented with FORTH. Bitsavers has some >> manuals on it from CalTech: > > The crucial bit is hobbyist, and, associated with it, the highy paid > electronic enginner dabbling as an extremely expensive and overpaid > untrained programmer. > > FORTH is not some magical solution, for it is largely the instruction > set of the English Electric KDF-9, details of which were in the > professional journals BEFORE Charles Moore came up with FORTH. > > Programming in FORTH is programming in assembly language and any real > computing has long set aside such a low level. > > YMMV There was a contemporary and similarly priced competitor to the Sinclair ZX81 which ran Forth instead of Basic <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Ace>. At the time, I think it was particularly popular as a controller for model railways and early 'robots'. I remember being interested but put off by not knowing anyone else who was - 'everyone' 'knew' Basic and didn't want to learn anything else. -- -- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-21 14:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n0849q$5fg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153141 |
"Whiskers" <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote in message news:slrnn2f1ip.rm.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net... > On 2015-10-21, gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: >> <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message >> news:8586b234-ff9e-4fa6-8070-6dfe3df64124@googlegroups.com... >>> Many computer hobbyists experimented with FORTH. Bitsavers has some >>> manuals on it from CalTech: >> The crucial bit is hobbyist, and, associated with it, the highy paid >> electronic enginner dabbling as an extremely expensive and overpaid >> untrained programmer. >> FORTH is not some magical solution, for it is largely the instruction >> set of the English Electric KDF-9, details of which were in the >> professional journals BEFORE Charles Moore came up with FORTH. >> Programming in FORTH is programming in assembly language and any real >> computing has long set aside such a low level. >> YMMV > There was a contemporary and similarly priced competitor to the Sinclair > ZX81 which ran Forth instead of Basic > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Ace>. At the time, I think it > was particularly popular as a controller for model railways and early > 'robots'. I remember being interested but put off by not knowing > anyone else who was - 'everyone' 'knew' Basic and didn't want to learn > anything else. The Jupiter Ace, IIRC
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 09:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <84twpj8fi8.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #153139 |
"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: > FORTH is not some magical solution, for it is largely the instruction set of > the English Electric KDF-9, > details of which were in the professional journals BEFORE Charles Moore came > up with FORTH. > > Programming in FORTH is programming in assembly language and any real > computing has > long set aside such a low level. > This seems a little unfair, because Forth wasn't just a language, it was an operating system. And the words used are not instructions, although they may have mapped closely to instructions in most cases. They are different in principle. And they can be typed interactively as well as in programs. And they can be as complex as you like, so you can have libraries just like C has libraries. Is C a 'higher' level than Forth?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 11:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n0acde$i4q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153203 |
"David Hume" <David.Hume@example.com> wrote in message news:84twpj8fi8.fsf@example.com... > "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: > >> FORTH is not some magical solution, for it is largely the instruction set >> of >> the English Electric KDF-9, >> details of which were in the professional journals BEFORE Charles Moore >> came >> up with FORTH. >> >> Programming in FORTH is programming in assembly language and any real >> computing has >> long set aside such a low level. >> > > This seems a little unfair, because Forth wasn't just a language, it was > an operating system. FORTH under Windows is not an operating system > And the words used are not instructions, although > they may have mapped closely to instructions in most cases. A word to swap two items on the top of the stack is very much a very low-level assembly type instruction. > They are > different in principle. Disagree. > And they can be typed interactively as well as in > programs. As in many implementations of Python and BASIC in its many incarnations. Do not confuse a language with the language support. > And they can be as complex as you like, You do not have that option with FORTH; all FORTH programs are complex because of the low-level operations. > so you can have > libraries just like C has libraries. > > Is C a 'higher' level than Forth? Most certainly for in C, as in other HLLs, you can put in lines such as x = (-B + SQRT(B** - 4*A*C))/2*A (the soultion for the quadratic equation!) and if you make a syntax error, such as missing off a bracket, the compiler will throw it out, whereas with FORTH, and as with assembly language, you have to write out a whole lot of individual low-level operations, and if you miss one out, or slip something else in, your program still runs and it is down to you to debug it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 11:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <84d1w78a2b.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #153205 |
"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >> This seems a little unfair, because Forth wasn't just a language, it was >> an operating system. > > FORTH under Windows is not an operating system But Forth was not under Windows. And Forth on my old 8-bit computer is an operating system. > >> And the words used are not instructions, although >> they may have mapped closely to instructions in most cases. > > A word to swap two items on the top of the stack is very much a very > low-level > assembly type instruction. But it is not implemented in that way, it is implemented as an interpreted call to a subroutine and then an interpreted call to get the next word. And although the example you have given is low level, it could equally well be higher level. For example . prints out a number to the screen in whatever the current number base is. I am guessing there was no instruction for that on the KDF-9. >> And they can be typed interactively as well as in >> programs. > > As in many implementations of Python and BASIC in its many incarnations. Do > not confuse > a language with the language support. I am not. But the subject line of the article is a bit ambiguous because it says "The Forth Computer Language" so is it referring to a component of Forth, or is it assuming that Forth is just a language and nothing else? I checked on Chuck Moore's website and he describes it as both a language, an interpreter, and an operating system in one paragraph. "Abstract "Forth is a simple, natural computer language. It has achieved remarkable acceptance where efficiency is valued. It evolved in the 1960s on a journey from university through business to laboratory. This is the story of how a simple interpreter expanded its abilities to become a complete programming language/operating system."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-22 12:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n0ah0n$1rk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153206 |
"David Hume" <David.Hume@example.com> wrote in message news:84d1w78a2b.fsf@example.com... > "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >> >> A word to swap two items on the top of the stack is very much a very >> low-level >> assembly type instruction. > > But it is not implemented in that way, it is implemented as an > interpreted call to a subroutine and then an interpreted call to get the > next word. And although the example you have given is low level, it > could equally well be higher level. For example . prints out a number to > the screen in whatever the current number base is. I am guessing there > was no instruction for that on the KDF-9. Some implementations of FORTH are interpreted, but not all. ISTR a PDP-11 version where DUP resolved to MOV (SP), -(SP)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 21:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n0e6hl$kjl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153207 |
"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message news:n0ah0n$1rk$1@dont-email.me... > ISTR a PDP-11 version where DUP resolved to MOV (SP), -(SP) Mea Culpa and a senior moment, I'd forgotten about the Return Stack and the Variable Stack of FORTH Change the above to read MOV (R0), -(R0)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web