Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: machineforth != forth? Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 07:11:27 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: <5cf160f0-e431-4309-b45a-70db3e6c9d79@googlegroups.com> <1fffb5d0-9a3f-4de4-81d9-0dbf73b4df55@googlegroups.com> <4ace3c81-e69b-44d4-bd1a-bd5ffd238e36@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: n4wpt9zq8xR26Ttf9mo2BA.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:41435 On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:28:19 -0400, 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 ...