Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.stack.nl!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Recommendation of a Forth to embed in C Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 05:02:28 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <85ca46a5-03d8-41ad-ab7e-8e5c3b781e48@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; 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:29718 On Sat, 19 Apr 2014 04:24:01 -0400, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 4/18/14 9:08 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:46:48 -0400, wrote: >>> - Able to produce Forth bytecode that can be transmitted over the >>> network and executed there >> >> I'm not sure of any that can produce bytecode ... That would >> dramatically limit the number of definable Forth words or dictionary >> size, although Forths which use bytecode probably do exist. > > LOL, there have been bytecode Forths ever since the first MacForth > (by Don Colburn) in 1984. You're implying I said none exist. I didn't. Re-read please. > MPE and FORTH, Inc. have both done extensive work > with bytecode Forths, including a major joint project in the 90's. That's nice to know. Are they open-source? If not, then they don't help the OP. > The standard approach, used by many languages, is to code the most > common 127 functions in one-byte codes, and use the high bit to signal > that there is a 2nd byte representing more functions. Well, that wouldn't truly be bytecoded then, would it? I.e., it uses more than one byte per instruction for some instructions. Technically, it's variable-length instruction. Rod Pemberton