Re: machineforth != forth?

From	"Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: machineforth != forth?
Date	2015-08-21 07:11 -0400
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<op.x3ptddwyyfako5@localhost> (permalink)
References	<5cf160f0-e431-4309-b45a-70db3e6c9d79@googlegroups.com> <mr2q24$rce$2@dont-email.me> <1fffb5d0-9a3f-4de4-81d9-0dbf73b4df55@googlegroups.com> <b55943bb-f202-44f0-9f5e-6c8c43397974@googlegroups.com> <4ace3c81-e69b-44d4-bd1a-bd5ffd238e36@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:28:19 -0400, <hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote:

> An on-board Forth system can't generate machine-code because
> it can't write into program memory --- this is a common limitation
> in Harvard Architecture systems ---

True.

> it is unlikely that Marcel Hendrix knows what Harvard Architecture
> is, or he wouldn't have stated that Forth has to be interactive.

False.

There is no correlation between an "on-board Forth system" with
a "Harvard Architecture" and Forth being interactive.  Even in
an embedded system, of Harvard or von Neumann design, with no
writable memory, Forth can still be interactive.   For an interpreted
Forth, you can enter Forth words with "interpretation semantics" and
they will (or should) execute.  They were already compiled and stored
in non-writable memory.  You just can't add any new definitions to a
dictionary or use PAD, etc, without writable memory.  The two stacks
are obviously being excluded as being writable memory here, even though
they usually are.

Rod Pemberton

-- 
Scientists now say we'll experience a mini-ice in 2030.
So, I guess we need more global warming today ...

Thread

machineforth != forth? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 13:28 -0700
  Re: machineforth != forth? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-08-19 22:49 +0200
    Re: machineforth != forth? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2015-08-20 00:13 -0700
      Re: machineforth != forth? Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-08-20 13:05 +0200
      Re: machineforth != forth? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 20:29 -0700
        Re: machineforth != forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-08-20 21:28 -0700
          Re: machineforth != forth? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-21 07:11 -0400
            Re: machineforth != forth? Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-08-21 23:23 +0100
              Re: machineforth != forth? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-08-21 21:06 -0700
                Re: machineforth != forth? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-08-21 21:41 -0700
                Re: machineforth != forth? Matthias Trute <matthias.trute@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 01:29 -0700
        Re: machineforth != forth? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2015-08-21 01:46 -0700
          Re: machineforth != forth? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-21 07:19 -0400
            Re: machineforth != forth? dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-08-27 21:42 +0000
  Re: machineforth != forth? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-08-20 08:10 +0000
    Re: machineforth != forth? Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-08-20 14:11 +0200

csiph-web