Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Rod Pemberton Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Really? Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 23:39:39 -0500 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 71 Message-ID: <20170206233939.70a7ecff@_> References: <1239a88b-a574-401b-9454-50ac7e000049@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ZTD62cW/Uw8bymX5ok+0NA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.13.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:54681 On Mon, 6 Feb 2017 06:46:00 -0800 (PST) Mark Wills wrote: > "As for Forth, although it has dedicated advocates, it's=20 > explicit stack orientation and its lack of modularity limit > the scale of Forth programs. One of the largest Forth efforts > was an integrated operating system called Valdocs (Valuable=20 > Document System) on the Epson QX-10. The software remained buggy > couldn't be updated quickly enough for the machine to remain=20 > competitive - although you could just as easilly blame the=20 > computer's Z-80 processor (since at the time the 8088 based IBM PC > and 68000 based Apple Macintosh were being introduced) and difficulty > in finding experienced Forth programmers. Whatever the cause, this=20 > soured the acceptance of Forth for large scale projects." >=20 > [link] Valdocs was nearly 16MB of FORTH code (according to the IEEE) running on a 4MHz Z80 with only 256KB of RAM. Why would you expect it to be a success? ... Also, during the early home computing years, other small projects using Forth were failing, such as Easywriter and Money Maestro. So, Forth had developed a bad reputation prior to the Valdocs failure: https://books.google.com/books?id=3DnS4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=3DPA80 That link says the Valdocs' "'compact and efficient' Forth code is more than 400K in size." Wouldn't that be a problem on a machine with 256K? This was before MMU's and memory paging. At best, the Epson QX-10 was probably bank switched. (Yes, Wikipedia confirms that.) Wikipedia mentions "Forth has been used successfully in large, complex projects," while not citing any such projects. From Bolo's Forth webpage, "There are supposedly a large number of applications and devices in the real world which use Forth. I say supposedly ..." Etc. Apparently, the large, complex and successful Forth projects were all commercial projects as almost no one can cite what they actually are. (Of course, Ms. Rather has cited some here, not widely known.) Another article says, "Forth became less common amongst commercial application and game developers, even as it retained a dedicated cult of hobbyists who have persisted with the language to this day." =20 That seems to sum up the majority of real world Forth usage as the only notable projects I can find mentioned anywhere are: NRAO OK-CAD OKAD-II Open Firmware OLPC Valdocs Charles Moore even admitted that Forth was not suited to applications. Instead, he saw Forth as a way to create a tool set for the programmer, rather than as a language for coding applications: "Writing big programs to be distributed in object code is a distortion of what Forth is all about. Forth is like a set of craftsman=E2=80=99s tool= s. You use it to make still more tools that work with whatever you specialize in. Then you use it to solve problems. Forth programs should always be distributed in source code. You should have Forth online at all times. Recompile whenever you want to use a program. Forth programs are tailored, they=E2=80=99re living and dynamic, not static object code." - Charles Moore, Byte magazine, Volume 10, pg 316, 1985 Rod Pemberton