Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #60556 > unrolled thread

Starting Forth

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  Starting Forth christopherdumas@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 07:15 -0700
    Re: Starting Forth christopherdumas@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 07:19 -0700
    Re: Starting Forth Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2017-06-10 14:35 +0000
      Re: Starting Forth christopherdumas@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 07:43 -0700
        Re: Starting Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 12:44 -0400
          Re: Starting Forth christopherdumas@gmail.com - 2017-06-11 20:44 -0700
      Re: Starting Forth gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 12:52 -0700
    Re: Starting Forth new@to.forth - 2017-06-10 15:19 +0000
      Re: Starting Forth christopherdumas@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 08:27 -0700
        Re: Starting Forth christopherdumas@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 08:29 -0700
          Re: Starting Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 15:34 -0700
            Re: Starting Forth christopherdumas@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 15:56 -0700
              Re: Starting Forth christopherdumas@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 15:57 -0700
                Re: Starting Forth rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 11:52 -0400
        Re: Starting Forth new@to.forth - 2017-06-10 21:38 +0000
          Re: Starting Forth christopherdumas@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 15:53 -0700
          Re: Starting Forth NN <november.nihal@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 05:36 -0700
            Re: Starting Forth christopherdumas@gmail.com - 2017-06-12 07:02 -0700
              Re: Starting Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 08:29 -0700
                Factor (was: Starting Forth) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-06-12 16:16 +0000
                  Re: Factor (was: Starting Forth) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-06-12 10:26 -0700
                    Re: Factor (was: Starting Forth) NN <november.nihal@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 11:25 -0700
                      Re: Factor (was: Starting Forth) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-06-12 17:16 -0700
                    Re: Factor (was: Starting Forth) gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:05 -0700
                  Re: Factor (was: Starting Forth) mhx@iae.nl - 2017-06-12 11:08 -0700
                    Re: Factor (was: Starting Forth) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-06-13 16:31 +0000
                Re: Starting Forth christopherdumas@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 07:49 -0700
                  Re: Starting Forth Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-06-14 11:50 -0500
                  Re: Starting Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 21:18 -0700
                Re: Starting Forth Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-06-14 10:02 -0500
                  Re: Starting Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 08:49 -0700
                    Re: Starting Forth stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-06-14 16:45 +0000
                  Re: Starting Forth Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 09:05 -0700
                    Re: Starting Forth Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-06-14 19:05 +0100
                      Re: Starting Forth hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-06-14 21:43 -0700
                        Re: Starting Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 22:03 -0700
                        Re: Starting Forth Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2017-06-15 21:50 +0100
      Re: Starting Forth foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 09:22 -0700
        Re: Starting Forth foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 09:40 -0700
        Re: Starting Forth Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-06-10 12:21 -0500
    Re: Starting Forth Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-06-10 14:30 -0700
      Re: Starting Forth christopherdumas@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 15:50 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#60664 — Re: Factor (was: Starting Forth)

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 9:51:45 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote:
> In the case of Factor, the point is that it is a managed language: The
> Factor system has type information on the data that it uses for dyamic
> and partially static type checking, and for supporting garbage
> collection.  And that can have quite a lot of advantages when
> designing library functions.
> 
> If you want to go there, extending a normal Forth does not appear to
> be a very viable approach to me.  And the result will be so different
> that I don't see a benefit to extending a normal Forth.  Mixing normal
> Forth with the managed part would destroy various invariants that the
> run-time system relies on, unless the Forth code obeys the
> restrictions that are necessary to keep them up; but then you are in
> the foreign managed world instead of in the familiar low-level Forth
> world.

In my experience, programming in Factor is very different from programming in Forth. They do have a data-stack, which is comparable, but the general feel for the languages is very different.

I would be more inclined to learn Scheme than Factor for that kind of thing, because there is more documentation to help me learn.

Also, Factor isn't a good choice for a Forth cross-compiler, which is my primary interest in Forth.

If a person is already familiar with Scheme-concepts however, Factor should be easy to learn. It could be better in some ways (no parenthesis) but worse in some ways (no macros).

Note that the lack of macros in Factor was a problem for me --- because I'm accustomed to meta-compiling in Forth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60667 — Re: Factor (was: Starting Forth)

> Note that the lack of macros in Factor was a problem for me --- because I'm accustomed to meta-compiling in Forth.

http://docs.factorcode.org/content/article-macros.html

Just to be clear, I am not trying to convince you to use factor but just to clarify that your position of factor lacking macros is wrong. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60672 — Re: Factor (was: Starting Forth)

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 11:25:51 AM UTC-7, NN wrote:
> > Note that the lack of macros in Factor was a problem for me --- because I'm accustomed to meta-compiling in Forth.
> 
> http://docs.factorcode.org/content/article-macros.html
> 
> Just to be clear, I am not trying to convince you to use factor but just to clarify that your position of factor lacking macros is wrong.

Thanks for the info. It was way back in 2009 when I was into Factor --- nothing like that was available in Factor at that time --- to the best of my recollection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60670 — Re: Factor (was: Starting Forth)

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 1:26:25 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 9:51:45 AM UTC-7, Anton Ertl wrote:
> > In the case of Factor, the point is that it is a managed language: The
> > Factor system has type information on the data that it uses for dyamic
> > and partially static type checking, and for supporting garbage
> > collection.  And that can have quite a lot of advantages when
> > designing library functions.
> > 
> > If you want to go there, extending a normal Forth does not appear to
> > be a very viable approach to me.  And the result will be so different
> > that I don't see a benefit to extending a normal Forth.  Mixing normal
> > Forth with the managed part would destroy various invariants that the
> > run-time system relies on, unless the Forth code obeys the
> > restrictions that are necessary to keep them up; but then you are in
> > the foreign managed world instead of in the familiar low-level Forth
> > world.
> 
> In my experience, programming in Factor is very different from programming in Forth. They do have a data-stack, which is comparable, but the general feel for the languages is very different.
> 
> I would be more inclined to learn Scheme than Factor for that kind of thing, because there is more documentation to help me learn.
> 
> Also, Factor isn't a good choice for a Forth cross-compiler, which is my primary interest in Forth.
> 
> If a person is already familiar with Scheme-concepts however, Factor should be easy to learn. It could be better in some ways (no parenthesis) but worse in some ways (no macros).
> 
> Note that the lack of macros in Factor was a problem for me --- because I'm accustomed to meta-compiling in Forth.

Hugh what kind of money making apps are you working on?
Do you want Trump 2020? I do.
Ever watch youtube of Hans Hermann Hoppe?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60665 — Re: Factor (was: Starting Forth)

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 6:51:45 PM UTC+2, Anton Ertl wrote:
> Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> writes:
[..] 
> In the case of Factor, the point is that it is a managed language: The
> Factor system has type information on the data that it uses for dyamic
> and partially static type checking, and for supporting garbage
> collection.  And that can have quite a lot of advantages when
> designing library functions.
[..]
> That being said, my experience with Factor has been rather miserable:
> At the Forth-Tagung 2012 there was a Factor workshop, and we were
> given the task to do something, and the first steps went well, and
> then there was some step that rubbed the static type checker the wrong
> way, and I could not get it to work, no matter what I tried; some
> others achieved that step, but their advice did not help me.
[..] 
> But that impression is based on playing around with it for half an
> afternoon.  I am sure if you get more familiar with it, you learn to
> deal with this issue and it soon becomes a non-issue.

Do you think all this type checking would have been useful to you,
had it worked?

My own experience is that when a compiler checks more, I tend to
be sloppy, writing careless code to prevent having to look up
things.

In other languages I constantly struggle with types (especially
when hidden under layers of macro's), to pass e.g. an unsigned
64bit integer through an interface designed for floating-point.
I know what I want and am prepared to suffer the consequences,
but the compiler doesn't let me. I've not yet experienced
this kind of compile-time fighting pay off.

-marcel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60704 — Re: Factor (was: Starting Forth)

mhx@iae.nl writes:
>Do you think all this type checking would have been useful to you,
>had it worked?

For the example in the workshop, no.  There are some cases where I
have a pointer to one structure in a place where I expect a different
one, and debugging that is not so easy.  Some kind of type checking
would help in that case.  But I think we can do that within Forth.

>My own experience is that when a compiler checks more, I tend to
>be sloppy, writing careless code to prevent having to look up
>things.

Yes.

>In other languages I constantly struggle with types (especially
>when hidden under layers of macro's), to pass e.g. an unsigned
>64bit integer through an interface designed for floating-point.
>I know what I want and am prepared to suffer the consequences,
>but the compiler doesn't let me. I've not yet experienced
>this kind of compile-time fighting pay off.

Yes, pretty much.  Also, in the case of C a consequence of C's type
system is that C programmers introduced many different integer types.
As a result, I have experienced many more 32->64-bit portability
errors in C than in Forth.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2017: http://www.euroforth.org/ef17/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60725

I completely 100% agree. I've started using SwiftForth and realized that Forth's metaprogramming facilities make new "Forth but with X" languages useless and actually worse than useless. The same thing is true of Scheme. If you want Forth but with X, just extend a Forth you already have. That brings me to a question, though: does SwiftForth have [: .. ;] as well?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60747

christopherdumas@gmail.com wrote:
> I completely 100% agree. I've started using SwiftForth and realized that Forth's metaprogramming facilities make new "Forth but with X" languages useless and actually worse than useless. The same thing is true of Scheme. If you want Forth but with X, just extend a Forth you already have. That brings me to a question, though: does SwiftForth have [: .. ;] as well?

I can't see it in 3.6.5.  Leon and I cooked it up at the last
EuroForth, but I can't see it in SwiftForth.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60766

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:49:59 AM UTC-7, christop...@gmail.com wrote:
> does SwiftForth have [: .. ;] as well?

I have an early-binding version of MACRO: now. 
This was introduced here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/92KNs8p4J6Y%5B1-25%5D
My previous MACRO: was late-binding --- it is still available but is called LATE-MACRO: now --- there are a few situations where it is needed.

My MACRO: only works because I have disambiguifiers that allow FIND to work correctly (by "correctly" I mean: without ambiguity from one ANS-Forth system to another, and in a way that makes sense insomuch as it is like Forth-83).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60727

On 6/12/2017 10:29 AM, Julian Fondren wrote:
> 
> 
> In Factor I see a lot of library work that could've gone into Forth
> instead, and a quotation-heavy style that I don't care for, but that
> at least is a little bit annoying to replicate in Forth. Today gforth
> (development version), lina, and iForth all have [: ... ;] and return
> stack manipulation can get you that as well.

Maybe because the the Forth community disparages the use of general 
libraries and he rather spend his energy writing code than arguing with 
people. I know from reaction here that if I had a really useful piece of 
general code I would keep it to myself rather than getting bombarded 
with negativity here.

> 
> So it's weird in a way I don't care for and it has libraries. I'd
> rather have libraries in Forth, a language with a standard and many
> good implementations for enormously more architectures, without any
> worries like: tomorrow Slava Pestov will decide that what Factor
> really needs is *lazy semantics* - breaking all existing code.
> 



-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60736

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 9:49:59 AM UTC-5, christop...@gmail.com wrote:
> That brings me to a question, though: does SwiftForth have [: .. ;] as well?

It doesn't come with an implementation of [: ;], and I'm not aware of
any, but there may be one around. It's also been pretty slow to adopt
Forth-2012 features. Some of those, like {: :} locals, have
implementations that should work in anything Forth-97, which includes
SwiftForth.



On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 10:02:48 AM UTC-5, Cecil - k5nwa wrote:
> On 6/12/2017 10:29 AM, Julian Fondren wrote:
> >
> >
> > In Factor I see a lot of library work that could've gone into Forth
> > instead, and a quotation-heavy style that I don't care for, but that
> > at least is a little bit annoying to replicate in Forth. Today gforth
> > (development version), lina, and iForth all have [: ... ;] and return
> > stack manipulation can get you that as well.
>
> Maybe because the the Forth community disparages the use of general
> libraries

True, Slava could've been delusional, and - in that era - may have
managed to interpret all of the excited discussion around Passanti's
calls for libraries as "libraries being contentious".

After all, TempleOS exists. Technical proficiency and terrible mental
illnesses can certainly go together.

> I know from reaction here that if I had a really useful piece of
> general code I would keep it to myself rather than getting bombarded
> with negativity here.

The worst I've gotten to actual code was "bah! I've done this before.
On a calculator! In winter!" And that was a response not to the code
but to some prose in my lead-in to the code.

For a more typical response, take a look at "Heap's algorithm".
A few disagreements on Forth style, some alternative implementations,
some typical clf derailings that you'd get anywhere. Nowhere was I
bombarded with negativity. And this wasn't very good code frankly and
I wasn't really doing anything with it.

There are also posts that are sort of niche, and that don't even get
the typical clf derailings -- take a look at Krishna's matrix math
or my networking threads.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60746

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:49:43 -0700 (PDT), Julian Fondren
<julian.fondren@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 9:49:59 AM UTC-5, christop...@gmail.com wrote:
>> That brings me to a question, though: does SwiftForth have [: .. ;] as well?
>
>It doesn't come with an implementation of [: ;], and I'm not aware of
>any, but there may be one around.

The file Examples/quotations.fth in all versions of VFX Forth provides
implementations for:
  SwiftForth
  bigForth
  Gforth
  VFX Forth

The file is a collation of work from several people and MPE makes
no copyright claims on the file.

Stephen

-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60738

On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 16:02:48 UTC+1, Cecil - k5nwa  wrote:
> 
> Maybe because the the Forth community disparages the use of general 
> libraries and he rather spend his energy writing code than arguing with 
> people. I know from reaction here that if I had a really useful piece of 
> general code I would keep it to myself rather than getting bombarded 
> with negativity here.
> 
Exactly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60750

On 14/06/2017 17:05, Mark Wills wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 16:02:48 UTC+1, Cecil - k5nwa  wrote:
>>
>> Maybe because the the Forth community disparages the use of general
>> libraries and he rather spend his energy writing code than arguing with
>> people. I know from reaction here that if I had a really useful piece of
>> general code I would keep it to myself rather than getting bombarded
>> with negativity here.
>>
> Exactly.
> 
Oh come on, the only negativity you had in c.l.f about your string stack 
library were the many bugs I reported, which, last time I looked, hadn't 
been corrected.

-- 
Gerry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60767

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 11:05:56 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote:
> On 14/06/2017 17:05, Mark Wills wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 16:02:48 UTC+1, Cecil - k5nwa  wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe because the the Forth community disparages the use of general
> >> libraries and he rather spend his energy writing code than arguing with
> >> people. I know from reaction here that if I had a really useful piece of
> >> general code I would keep it to myself rather than getting bombarded
> >> with negativity here.
> >>
> > Exactly.
> > 
> Oh come on, the only negativity you had in c.l.f about your string stack 
> library were the many bugs I reported, which, last time I looked, hadn't 
> been corrected.

Does this thread count as negativity?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/xZO_hScBJiI

On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:26:53 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
> Alex wrote on 6/11/2017 12:52 PM:
> >>> you can't
> >>> blame me (or others here) for Hugh's stupidity on these counts, nor our
> >>> reaction to his technically incompetent and near insane posts.
> >>
> >> I'm pretty over trying to have any useful communication with people like
> >> that.  There are far too many of them on the Internet and far too little
> >> time.  I want to try to spend some time on useful projects.
> >
> > The disinformation they spread is toxic. It's like green slime; it gets
> > everywhere. I'm afraid I sometimes can't stop myself from pointing out how
> > it gunges up everything, including brains.
> 
> But in doing so, you also spread some of the green slime as well.  I 
> recently saw a photo of a Roomba that encountered a fresh dog pile and 
> spread it around the room rather than picking it up.
> 
> Some things are best left untouched.

This seems like a rather emotional response to my SORT function for arrays. When I wrote SORT in 2010 it seemed pretty simple and obvious. I did not expect to get attacked for it, for four years now, and I most likely forever. There are a lot more complicated aspects of the novice-package, but sorting arrays isn't one of them --- this is pretty basic programming --- I haven't actually been interested in the subject of sort algorithms since high-school.

Maybe Cecil is the smart one --- keep all Forth code to yourself! --- if your Forth code is made public, it will be called "green slime" and "disinformation" and you will be called "stupid" and "insane."

Back in the 1980s people had high hopes for the future. We imagined that by the 21st century we would have a colony living on the Moon, that we would have airborne cars (like the "quibble" in PKD's book: "Flow my Tears, the Policeman Said"). None of that happened. Our modern world looks the same as the 1980s (our cars look the same; they get better gas mileage, but they are harder to repair). The primary difference is that we have better communication now, including smart phones, laptops with wifi, and the internet. This isn't necessarily an improvement though --- what good does better communication do me, if all I get are insults? --- the internet is just a faster way to be called stupid!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60768

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 11:43:32 PM UTC-5, hughag...@gmail.com wrote:
> [Hugh complaining about rudeness.]

Go a few more months without fantasizing about the afterlife of other posters.

> Back in the 1980s people had high hopes for the future. We imagined that by the 21st century we would have a colony living on the Moon, that we would have airborne cars (like the "quibble" in PKD's book: "Flow my Tears, the Policeman Said"). None of that happened. Our modern world looks the same as the 1980s (our cars look the same; they get better gas mileage, but they are harder to repair). The primary difference is that we have better communication now, including smart phones, laptops with wifi, and the internet. This isn't necessarily an improvement though --- what good does better communication do me, if all I get are insults? --- the internet is just a faster way to be called stupid!

A morbid, nightmare future that sometimes occurs to me is one where age or
ailment has blinded me to the presence of insects, so that I'll come to live in
filth, with the things crawling around, visible to others but to me. Even if
one crawls across my flesh I'd feel the irritation but not understand why, not
be able to do anything about it. Not even know to complain about the 'care'
provided to me.

...

Oh, sorry. That's obviously a complete non sequitur from your talk of 2017
"looking like the 1980s except for technology". Ha ha, where are our flying
cars?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60795

On 15/06/2017 05:43, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 11:05:56 AM UTC-7, Gerry wrote:
>> On 14/06/2017 17:05, Mark Wills wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 14 June 2017 16:02:48 UTC+1, Cecil - k5nwa  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Maybe because the the Forth community disparages the use of general
>>>> libraries and he rather spend his energy writing code than arguing with
>>>> people. I know from reaction here that if I had a really useful piece of
>>>> general code I would keep it to myself rather than getting bombarded
>>>> with negativity here.
>>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>> Oh come on, the only negativity you had in c.l.f about your string stack
>> library were the many bugs I reported, which, last time I looked, hadn't
>> been corrected.
> 
> Does this thread count as negativity?
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/xZO_hScBJiI
> 
> On Monday, June 12, 2017 at 8:26:53 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote:
>> Alex wrote on 6/11/2017 12:52 PM:
>>>>> you can't
>>>>> blame me (or others here) for Hugh's stupidity on these counts, nor our
>>>>> reaction to his technically incompetent and near insane posts.
>>>>
>>>> I'm pretty over trying to have any useful communication with people like
>>>> that.  There are far too many of them on the Internet and far too little
>>>> time.  I want to try to spend some time on useful projects.
>>>
>>> The disinformation they spread is toxic. It's like green slime; it gets
>>> everywhere. I'm afraid I sometimes can't stop myself from pointing out how
>>> it gunges up everything, including brains.
>>
>> But in doing so, you also spread some of the green slime as well.  I
>> recently saw a photo of a Roomba that encountered a fresh dog pile and
>> spread it around the room rather than picking it up.
>>
>> Some things are best left untouched.
> 

Read in isolation it's not about negativity towards posted code or 
libraries. I don't know about the original post because I don't 
recollect reading it.

> This seems like a rather emotional response to my SORT function for arrays. When I wrote SORT in 2010 it seemed pretty simple and obvious. I did not expect to get attacked for it, for four years now, and I most likely forever. 

Yes it is rather tiresome the way it goes on and on, both sides have 
made their point and should just let it die.

> Maybe Cecil is the smart one --- keep all Forth code to yourself! --- 

Well people who take and don't contribute usually don't command much 
respect.

 > if your Forth code is made public, it will be called "green slime" and
 > "disinformation" and you will be called "stupid" and "insane."

That is a good example of disinformation as the post you quoted from 
didn't call code "green slime" and "disinformation", it said 
disinformation is like green slime - since when is code disinformation?

There has been plenty of Forth code posted on c.l.f that hasn't been 
dismissed in such a way. There's a world of difference between valid 
criticism (including suggestions for a better solution) and uninformed 
hostility.

-- 
Gerry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60566

It's hard to recommend one Forth system.  Most have been created for specific purposes.  That can be the blessing and the curse of Forth.  It's built to be changed and so that's what the users do.

NPR and Forth Inc. both offer trial versions of very comprehensive pro systems that show you what Forth is today.

Jones Forth provides source code with running explanation.  It is not the ultimate implementation but can provide insight "behind the curtain"

Albert Van derHorst has made a better version with commentary called YourForth.

Camel Forth has source code for a few micro processors and is modified for MSP430 under the name 
Mecrisp

I used camel Forth as a platform to learn how to learn how to make a cross compiler that builds a Forth for the TI99.  That's called masochism by some people. :-)

So all that to say the best system may depend on what you want to do.

BF

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60568

Lol. MPE. Not NPR

(iPhone disease)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60570

On 6/10/2017 11:22 AM, foxaudioresearch@gmail.com wrote:
> It's hard to recommend one Forth system.  Most have been created for specific purposes.  That can be the blessing and the curse of Forth.  It's built to be changed and so that's what the users do.
> 
> NPR and Forth Inc. both offer trial versions of very comprehensive pro systems that show you what Forth is today.
> 
> Jones Forth provides source code with running explanation.  It is not the ultimate implementation but can provide insight "behind the curtain"
> 
> Albert Van derHorst has made a better version with commentary called YourForth.
> 
> Camel Forth has source code for a few micro processors and is modified for MSP430 under the name
> Mecrisp
> 
> I used camel Forth as a platform to learn how to learn how to make a cross compiler that builds a Forth for the TI99.  That's called masochism by some people. :-)
> 
> So all that to say the best system may depend on what you want to do.
> 
> BF
> 

I didn't know NPR (National Public Radio) offered a Forth system. Maybe 
the hands were in the wrong place while typing.

I would add MPE VFX Forth to the list, it has an excellent free version 
available, for a little out of the way with excellent libraries 
available you have 8th which has a free version also.

On the other end of the spectrum a much simpler Forth would be eForth 
(weForth, and F# for a Windows version) with source and available on the 
Internet are documents explaining how it all works.

There are so many free versions available that it's hard to mention them 
all but I guess which one is right depends on ones mind set and purpose, 
also on the type of application desired.

A version I downloaded recently is very interesting it's BB4WForth 
written in BBC Basic, actually the primitives are in assembler but there 
is a Basic wrapper around Forth that allows access to the OS and BBC 
Basic and an excellent set of libraries which also include Graphics, 
Sprites, and Networking so writing a game should be easier with that 
tool. There are free versions for Windows, Linux, and MacOS.



-- 
Cecil - k5nwa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web