Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alexander Skobelev Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth16e, Forth32e, "de facto" forth programming standards for embedded Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:35:25 +0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <49aa991d-41c6-44ae-afe4-ad1b7434011b@googlegroups.com> <62cc3792-e246-4f0b-b671-c09908d5f3b0@googlegroups.com> <9f8a7188-7ef0-4ae4-8341-e27a41f9a44b@googlegroups.com> <22c8fa6d-fe0a-4de2-bfe5-61390a28db91@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c06df6f82bc3e702fe6003b9c91f1b52"; logging-data="5110"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18EKGz376squUkZkEgRf3PL" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (darwin) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZcxD9ZDWzBkLNQ6U3J1iAaQTNSA= sha1:6hpNfOyUd8mpSCJx54BA1hPm3Mg= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:32465 hughaguilar96@yahoo.com writes: > On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 11:21:48 PM UTC-7, Alexander Skobelev wrote: >> hughaguilar96@yahoo.com writes: >> > With my language, I have abandoned the ANS-Forth idea of the language >> > running on any size of processor. I require a 64-bit processor. >> >> > I actually have two languages. HostForth is 64-bit and runs on desktop >> > computers. TargForth is a cross-compiler written in HostForth that >> > targets micro-controllers. These may be 16-bit or 32-bit. HostForth >> > and TargForth are not compatible --- it is unrealistic to expect the >> > same language to run on a big desktop computer and a little >> > micro-controller --- the environments are just too different. > >> I don't understand and just wonder if your language supposed to be used >> for writing programs for PCs or only for micro-controllers? And if so, >> do I've got it properly that in this case one can do it with only >> HostForth without TargForth? (Or how to write programs for 64-bit >> platforms?) I ask you about this because, if my memory serves me well, >> somewhere earlier you wrote that HostForth is sort of low-lewel language >> intended to host languages for the target platforms. > > My language is primarily for micro-controllers. The user writes his > program in TargForth, which is a cross-compiler targeting whatever > micro-controller he is using. TargForth is written in HostForth, and > HostForth is a pretty-much-traditional stand-alone Forth system. > > Novice-level users don't have to learn HostForth at all; they can > write applications in TargForth without knowing how TargForth is > implemented (it is written in HostForth). Intermediate-level users > (those who write meta-compiling code) will have to learn enough > HostForth to write their compile-time code. Advanced-level users > (those who want to upgrade TargForth to a new micro-controller) will > have to learn HostForth thoroughly so they can upgrade TargForth for a > new target (TargForth is a large program written in HostForth). > > For the most part, I'm not planning on supporting development of > desktop-computer software. It is possible to write desktop-computer > software in HostForth however. I myself will write a CAM program in > HostForth (CAM means: Computer-Aided-Manufacture; this is generating > gcode for CNC machines). I have no interest in internet server stuff, > which is what most of the world uses desktop-computers for --- and > there are already myriad dynamic-OOP languages available for this. I > will most likely have a "sister language," which will be either Factor > or one of the Scheme systems, and I will encourage people to write > desktop-computer utility programs in it rather than HostForth, so I > don't get bogged down writing wrappers for a lot of desktop-computer > libraries that I don't understand very well and have little or no > interest in. For my own part, I want to concentrate on writing > TargForth versions in HostForth, and writing my own CAM software in > HostForth --- the two subjects that I am reasonably knowledgeable in > (unlike the typical Forth-200x committee member, I don't pretend to be > an expert on everything). OK, I see your point. Thank you for the detailed response.