Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Was just wondering when people started using C to write forth languages and not assembly?
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 11:29:40 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <874m9tgauj.fsf@jester.gateway.pace.com>
References: <622db793-14c4-48e5-a732-686c0b759db5@googlegroups.com> <20160518203818.4fd0690d@_>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="52eac348160ce62b68e4635eee7cc854"; logging-data="3209"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/bvjJrtWL0mlQHpWiFVEi3"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:e0PE5GMG6I6fXHoRFYCV+iI8ovQ= sha1:Mv3Glz66MEiMzsnJKClT3/6Im9U=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:47315

Rod Pemberton <NoHaveNotOne@bcczxcfre.cmm> writes:
> Yes, the C.H. Ting variant of Bill Muench's eForth was coded in Forth
> using only 36 primitives.  The remainder is in high-level Forth.  This
> was considered to be the first Forth to use this method.  

What?  Forth-in-forth is/was very traditional and Figforth was written
that way long before eForth.  eForth went further than others to
minimize the number of primitives, but the basic approach was similar.