Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #38814 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-05-04 09:44 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-05-08 16:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 112 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
FORTH - How Does It Work? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-04 09:44 -0700
FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-04 10:21 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-04 11:00 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 03:03 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-05 11:31 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 01:31 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-05-05 08:49 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-05-05 11:16 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 02:33 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-04 08:49 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-05-04 19:13 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-04 20:35 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-04 10:43 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-05-05 08:52 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-05 10:54 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-05 10:56 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-05-04 20:01 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-04 17:23 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-04 17:34 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 00:25 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-05-05 12:41 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> - 2015-05-05 03:31 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-05 08:41 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-05 11:36 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-05-07 11:26 +1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-06 16:46 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-05-07 00:06 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-05-10 12:57 +1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-09 21:36 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-09 18:36 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-09 22:09 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-05-10 13:38 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-05-10 14:23 -0500
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-10 20:51 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-05-11 01:18 +0200
Apology to Walter Banks - was [Re: FORTH - How Does It Work?] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-05-10 23:09 -0500
Re: Apology to Walter Banks - was [Re: FORTH - How Does It Work?] Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-05-11 07:24 -0400
Re: Apology to Walter Banks - was [Re: FORTH - How Does It Work?] rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 11:34 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-10 19:18 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-05-11 07:50 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? beeflo <beeflobill@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:37 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 11:32 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-12 05:21 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-12 14:08 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-12 14:52 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-12 17:18 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-05-13 08:41 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-13 08:07 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-13 19:29 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-12 08:10 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-12 17:13 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-12 09:33 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-12 15:38 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 21:51 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-12 16:05 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-14 17:26 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? bettilyona@gmail.com - 2015-06-02 10:21 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-02 20:39 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? bettilyona@gmail.com - 2015-06-08 13:14 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-06-20 13:15 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-06-20 14:37 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-06-20 08:23 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-06-20 19:24 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Hans Bezemer <the.beez.speaks@gmail.com> - 2015-06-21 12:30 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-06-21 20:58 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-06-22 00:13 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-05-11 12:10 +1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 11:35 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-11 16:52 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-11 08:12 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 12:37 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-05-11 15:59 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-11 21:34 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 16:42 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-11 21:52 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 14:55 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-12 16:22 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 22:42 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 11:18 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 15:04 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 20:38 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 14:31 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-05-12 07:06 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-11 21:30 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 14:52 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 20:40 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-05-12 03:38 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 22:10 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 20:25 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-12 01:13 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-12 11:03 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-05-12 16:08 +0200
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-05-12 14:04 +0000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 19:08 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 22:46 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-05-14 18:30 +1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-13 22:55 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-05-16 05:08 +1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-05-15 09:54 -1000
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 13:59 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-14 10:40 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-05-14 03:12 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-14 12:03 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-10 22:09 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-11 10:12 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-11 18:57 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 11:48 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2015-05-11 20:28 +0100
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 21:28 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 11:29 -0400
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? Ching-Tang Tseng <ilikeforth@gmail.com> - 2015-05-04 19:40 -0700
Re: FORTH - How Does It Work? tthomas@duelcraft2.com - 2015-05-08 16:22 -0700
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-05 12:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jsuq84vqb3gu$.3pwcac90lkso$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #38831 |
Op Tue, 5 May 2015 00:25:55 -0700 (PDT) schreef Mark Wills: > On Tuesday, 5 May 2015 01:35:01 UTC+1, Jason Damisch wrote: >> On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> >>> It seems that the constants beginning with digit '6' might be XTs >>> due to COMPILE, . I could guess that >DEFINER takes the constants >>> which begin with '14', but what is >DEFINER ? >> >> I'm not sure about all of that. But, if you want >> to understand how a simpler Forth works which is >> simpler than current optimizing Forth systems, >> then instead of guessing, why not grab >> Inside F83 from Ting? >> >> Jason > > Been looking for it for years. All I have/had is some unreable binary > files from a decades old, long obsolete word processor of some sort. > > :-( Those are not all binary files. Some are blocks files with lines of 64 character without line breaks. Hard to read with standard editor ;-) Startup your linux and type: dd if=source.scr of=source.txt cbs=64 conv=unblock Or try ciforth's fromblk.frt -- Coos CHForth, 16 bit DOS applications http://home.hccnet.nl/j.j.haak/forth.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-05 03:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <op.xx5i6auwwa0t4m@localhost> |
| In reply to | #38829 |
On Mon, 04 May 2015 20:34:59 -0400, Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 5:00:58 PM UTC-7, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> It seems that the constants beginning with digit '6' might be XTs >> due to COMPILE, . I could guess that >DEFINER takes the constants >> which begin with '14', but what is >DEFINER ? > > I'm not sure about all of that. But, if you want > to understand how a simpler Forth works which is > simpler than current optimizing Forth systems, > then instead of guessing, why not grab > Inside F83 from Ting? > I appreciate the replies Jason, although I did find the first to be rather funny as I first learned hexadecimal with 6502 assembly back in the 1980's. Also, you probably wanted "discern" not "decern". The latter is obsolete. However, I've already implemented an ITC Forth interpreter. It's built up from a small set of primitives or low-level words. I believe that Dr. C.H. Ting and Bill Muench were the first to popularize that approach with their eForth and it's 36 primitives. I was just wondering what the numbers meant in the gForth context as they're obviously rather cryptic. It appears that there are two distinct sets of ranges. If one set is for XTs then what are the others? The other set obviously has something to do with the >DEFINER word, which I was hoping someone familiar with gForth was familiar with. So, I guess the multiple gForth authors here are not ... As Albert pointed out, this is not conducive to anyone learning Forth. Rod Pemberton -- Cars kill more people than guns in the U.S. Yet, no one is trying to take away your car.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-05 08:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mi9s4r$l49$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38832 |
on 05/05/2015 08:31:12, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: > > I was just wondering what the numbers meant in the gForth context as > they're obviously rather cryptic. It appears that there are two > distinct sets of ranges. If one set is for XTs then what are the > others? The other set obviously has something to do with the >DEFINER > word, which I was hoping someone familiar with gForth was familiar > with. So, I guess the multiple gForth authors here are not ... Try Google. Took me all of, oh, 5 seconds to stype "gforth >definer". > > As Albert pointed out, this is not conducive to anyone learning Forth. It's not Forth, it's the machine decompiled compiled Forth, and SEE is not a pedagogical tool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-05 11:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2015May5.133634@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #38827 |
"Rod Pemberton" <bork@lllljunkqwer.cpm> writes:
>On Mon, 04 May 2015 15:13:36 -0400, Albert van der Horst
><albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> Well the OP suggest this to people who want to know how Forth
>> works on the inside. An alternative is to randomly start SEE-ing
>> some code in a Forth you use.
>> For an extreme example take this:
>>
>> Gforth 0.7.0, Copyright (C) 1995-2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> Gforth comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `license'
>> Type `bye' to exit
>> SEE TO
>> noname :
>> ' dup >definer 140003129076120 >definer =
>> IF 16 + !
>> ELSE -32 throw
>> THEN ;
>> latestxt
>>
>> noname :
>> COMP' drop dup >definer 140003129076120 >definer over =
>> IF drop 16 + POSTPONE ALiteral 6396632 compile,
>> ELSE 140003129105440 >definer over =
>> IF drop 6397824 compile, 16 + @ lp-offset, 6396656 compile,
>> ELSE 140003129105608 >definer over =
>> IF drop 6397824 compile, 16 + @ lp-offset, 6396632
>> compile,
>>
>> ELSE 140003129105496 >definer over =
>> IF drop 6397824 compile, 16 + @ lp-offset,
>> 6396664
>> compile,
>> ELSE 140003129105552 >definer over =
>> IF drop 6397824 compile, 16 + @
>> lp-offset,
>> 6397288 compile,
>> ELSE -32 throw drop
>> THEN
>> THEN
>> THEN
>> THEN
>> THEN ;
>> latestxt
>> interpret/compile: TO ok
>>
>> Compared to Ting's books this is pretty intimidating.
I guess Ting's books do not cover TO for locals of different types,
plus values.
The source code for this code is:
also locals-types
\ these "locals" are used for comparison in TO
c: some-clocal 2drop
d: some-dlocal 2drop
f: some-flocal 2drop
w: some-wlocal 2drop
:noname
' dup >definer [ ' locals-wordlist ] literal >definer =
if
>body !
else
-&32 throw
endif ;
:noname
comp' drop dup >definer
case
[ ' locals-wordlist ] literal >definer \ value
OF >body POSTPONE Aliteral POSTPONE ! ENDOF
\ !! dependent on c: etc. being does>-defining words
\ this works, because >definer uses >does-code in this case,
\ which produces a relocatable address
[ comp' some-clocal drop ] literal >definer
OF POSTPONE laddr# >body @ lp-offset, POSTPONE c! ENDOF
[ comp' some-wlocal drop ] literal >definer
OF POSTPONE laddr# >body @ lp-offset, POSTPONE ! ENDOF
[ comp' some-dlocal drop ] literal >definer
OF POSTPONE laddr# >body @ lp-offset, POSTPONE 2! ENDOF
[ comp' some-flocal drop ] literal >definer
OF POSTPONE laddr# >body @ lp-offset, POSTPONE f! ENDOF
-&32 throw
endcase ;
interpret/compile: TO ( c|w|d|r "name" -- ) \ core-ext,local
The code is pretty opaque, because it deals with a number of issues,
like how to determine whether a word is a value, or a local, and if
so, of which type; or how to write this code so that it works with the
image relocation scheme that Gforth uses; or how locals are
implemented.
>It seems that the constants beginning with digit '6' might be XTs
>due to COMPILE, . I could guess that >DEFINER takes the constants
>which begin with '14', but what is >DEFINER ?
The numbers starting with 6 are xts of primitives like C!. The
numbers starting with 14 are addresses in the dictionary; in this
case, I think that they are all xts. Concerning >DEFINER, here's the
documentation:
|>definer xt -- definer gforth '>definer'
|
|Definer is a unique identifier for the way the xt was defined. Words
|defined with different does>-codes have different definers. The
|definer can be used for comparison and in definer!.
>
>Are the large constants the XTs of primitive words?
>Are they the XTs of NONAME words?
>
>Can I execute '6397824'? (Yes.)
>Can I execute '140003129105440'? ...
>Can I display their name or SEE their code?
Try it. XT-SEE ( xt -- ) may help you with SEEing it.
- 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 2015: http://www.mpeforth.com/euroforth2015/euroforth2015.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-07 11:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mieeur$6u4$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #38821 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 5/4/15 6:44 AM, Jason Damisch wrote: > > Dear Humans, > > > > It may be that somebody may stumble upon this thread, > > somebody who is interested in finding out how Forth > > works on the inside. Maybe they are just curious > > about that, or perhaps they will try write their > > own Forth. > > > > Dr. Ting is famous in the Forth Community. > > > > http://www.offete.com/books.html > > > > Here are a few books which describe how Forth works > > under the hood so to speak. I have Inside F83 myself > > and I can tell you that if you are interested in the > > subject, that is it worth the price. > > Except that not all Forths work that way. In fact, increasingly fewer. I > don't think it does Forth any good to spread the notion that the > language is defined by a particular implementation. It's defined by how > it's used to write and test programs. I use Forth 'to write and test programs'. Should I worry that it still uses threaded code (as did polyForth) ? Implementation is much less of an issue today than back in the day when cpu's were slow. I don't begrudge Forthers who peek under the hood. These just may be the Rick Van Normans who release several 'hobby' forths before moving on to bigger things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-06 16:46 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <Q6ednYlOHPy-T9fInZ2dnUU7-XOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #38874 |
On 5/6/15 3:26 PM, HAA wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> On 5/4/15 6:44 AM, Jason Damisch wrote: >>> Dear Humans, >>> >>> It may be that somebody may stumble upon this thread, >>> somebody who is interested in finding out how Forth >>> works on the inside. Maybe they are just curious >>> about that, or perhaps they will try write their >>> own Forth. >>> >>> Dr. Ting is famous in the Forth Community. >>> >>> http://www.offete.com/books.html >>> >>> Here are a few books which describe how Forth works >>> under the hood so to speak. I have Inside F83 myself >>> and I can tell you that if you are interested in the >>> subject, that is it worth the price. >> >> Except that not all Forths work that way. In fact, increasingly fewer. I >> don't think it does Forth any good to spread the notion that the >> language is defined by a particular implementation. It's defined by how >> it's used to write and test programs. > > I use Forth 'to write and test programs'. Should I worry that it still uses > threaded code (as did polyForth) ? Implementation is much less of an > issue today than back in the day when cpu's were slow. > > I don't begrudge Forthers who peek under the hood. These just may be > the Rick Van Normans who release several 'hobby' forths before moving > on to bigger things. It seems to be characteristic of c.l.f. that folks are more interested in peeking under the hood than "writing and testing programs." Adapting features from other languages "just because they can" is popular, too. A lot of our customers are too busy writing and testing programs to spend much time on c.l.f. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-07 00:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <37afe726-7ea1-4007-bc1b-dbc3431cecc7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38876 |
Den torsdag 7 maj 2015 kl. 04:47:00 UTC+2 skrev Elizabeth D. Rather: > On 5/6/15 3:26 PM, HAA wrote: > > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> On 5/4/15 6:44 AM, Jason Damisch wrote: > >>> Dear Humans, > >>> > >>> It may be that somebody may stumble upon this thread, > >>> somebody who is interested in finding out how Forth > >>> works on the inside. Maybe they are just curious > >>> about that, or perhaps they will try write their > >>> own Forth. > >>> > >>> Dr. Ting is famous in the Forth Community. > >>> > >>> http://www.offete.com/books.html > >>> > >>> Here are a few books which describe how Forth works > >>> under the hood so to speak. I have Inside F83 myself > >>> and I can tell you that if you are interested in the > >>> subject, that is it worth the price. > >> > >> Except that not all Forths work that way. In fact, increasingly fewer. I > >> don't think it does Forth any good to spread the notion that the > >> language is defined by a particular implementation. It's defined by how > >> it's used to write and test programs. > > > > I use Forth 'to write and test programs'. Should I worry that it still uses > > threaded code (as did polyForth) ? Implementation is much less of an > > issue today than back in the day when cpu's were slow. > > > > I don't begrudge Forthers who peek under the hood. These just may be > > the Rick Van Normans who release several 'hobby' forths before moving > > on to bigger things. > > It seems to be characteristic of c.l.f. that folks are more interested > in peeking under the hood than "writing and testing programs." Adapting > features from other languages "just because they can" is popular, too. A > lot of our customers are too busy writing and testing programs to spend > much time on c.l.f. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth > > -- > ================================================== > Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH > FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 > 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 > Los Angeles, CA 90045 > http://www.forth.com > > "Forth-based products and Services for real-time > applications since 1973." > ================================================== It's our lust for power. The computers world is a world of its own and humans (at least Forthers) longing for master that world. Charles Moore opened a door and showed how understandable and easy computers really was. We can examine the computer by our systems from high level code to machine code and understand how it works. And feel powerful! An other lust is the lust of making programs with Forth because it's so fun: creativity can flow without even if you aren't an expert of the rigmarole art of what is allowed or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-10 12:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mimhen$flv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #38876 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > ... > It seems to be characteristic of c.l.f. that folks are more interested > in peeking under the hood than "writing and testing programs." Adapting > features from other languages "just because they can" is popular, too. A > lot of our customers are too busy writing and testing programs to spend > much time on c.l.f. Yet it is these same 'clf' folk whom you permit (rely on) to define Forth via the Standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-09 21:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <877bcd2d-2053-4db9-8136-27bed5f98e02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38924 |
On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 7:57:44 PM UTC-7, HAA wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > ... > > It seems to be characteristic of c.l.f. that folks are more interested > > in peeking under the hood than "writing and testing programs." Adapting > > features from other languages "just because they can" is popular, too. A > > lot of our customers are too busy writing and testing programs to spend > > much time on c.l.f. > > Yet it is these same 'clf' folk whom you permit (rely on) to define Forth via > the Standard. ??? The ANS-Forth standard was written by Elizabeth Rather --- the "clf folk" are just the cult following, but they aren't defining anything --- ANS-Forth was committed to ANSI and effectively became written in stone in 1994. There is really nobody other than Elizabeth Rather to blame for ANS-Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-09 18:36 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <6OGdnc9ma7zCfdPInZ2dnUU7-QednZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #38924 |
On 5/9/15 4:57 PM, HAA wrote: > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: >> ... >> It seems to be characteristic of c.l.f. that folks are more interested >> in peeking under the hood than "writing and testing programs." Adapting >> features from other languages "just because they can" is popular, too. A >> lot of our customers are too busy writing and testing programs to spend >> much time on c.l.f. > > Yet it is these same 'clf' folk whom you permit (rely on) to define Forth via > the Standard. A significant number of the voting members (according to the published Forth 2012) are rarely if ever on c.l.f., and a number of c.l.f regulars aren't on the Standards team (including myself). The Standards team needs (and, fortunately, has) a number of professional Forth programmers who are primarily engaged in "writing and testing Forth programs". That's an important point of view. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-09 22:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c144f56a-ecf3-42a5-8562-f5d9f15488cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38926 |
On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 9:36:48 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> On 5/9/15 4:57 PM, HAA wrote:
> > Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
> >> ...
> >> It seems to be characteristic of c.l.f. that folks are more interested
> >> in peeking under the hood than "writing and testing programs." Adapting
> >> features from other languages "just because they can" is popular, too. A
> >> lot of our customers are too busy writing and testing programs to spend
> >> much time on c.l.f.
> >
> > Yet it is these same 'clf' folk whom you permit (rely on) to define Forth via
> > the Standard.
>
> A significant number of the voting members (according to the published
> Forth 2012) are rarely if ever on c.l.f., and a number of c.l.f regulars
> aren't on the Standards team (including myself).
>
> The Standards team needs (and, fortunately, has) a number of
> professional Forth programmers who are primarily engaged in "writing and
> testing Forth programs". That's an important point of view.
>
> Cheers,
> Elizabeth
Forth-200x is owned entirely by Forth Inc. --- the whole bit with having a "standards team" is just a charade to make the world think that Forth-200x is representative of a "Forth community" somewhere --- this subterfuge is necessary because nobody will take a standard seriously if it is owned by a corporation. This is called "astro-turfing" --- making a corporate interest appear to be a grassroots interest.
Stephen Pelc makes money from "joint projects" with Forth Inc. (meaning that you do the selling, then he does the programming), so he is obliged to vote as Leon Wagner tells him to vote. For example, he dutifully accepted {: for locals because { is used for multi-line comments in Forth Inc., despite the fact that this pulls the rug out from under all of his own legacy code that uses { for locals (and all of the legacy code from everybody else in the Forth community).
Anton Ertl is just a puppet. He is currently making the ridiculous claim that it is ANS-Forth compliant for FIND to abort when given certain words (IF, semicolon, etc.).
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/oXXQAGDKP7w%5B1-25%5D
He is just making a fool out of himself in public --- this is obviously being done to prevent people from writing a outer-interpreter in gForth, meaning that they can't write a cross-compiler in gForth in competition with Forth Inc. and MPE. I defeated him with my disambiguifiers though --- now FIND works correctly for all words in the dictionary in both VFX and gForth.
ANS-Forth and Forth-200x both are grossly dishonest --- this is not helping Forth programmers --- this is all about preventing Forth programmers from writing certain kinds of programs (cross-compilers), which just happen to be the kinds of programs that are worth money.
I made money writing a cross-compiler in Forth (UR/Forth) when I worked for Testra. Because of this, you have always hated me and have always denied that I am a Forth programmer at all (going way back to 2009 when I first showed up on CLF and you enthusiastically agreed with your little attack poodle Passaniti that my code "sucks" and is "crap").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-10 13:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mio52n$rh4$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #38927 |
On 10/05/2015 1:09 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 9, 2015 at 9:36:48 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
>> On 5/9/15 4:57 PM, HAA wrote:
>>> Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> It seems to be characteristic of c.l.f. that folks are more interested
>>>> in peeking under the hood than "writing and testing programs." Adapting
>>>> features from other languages "just because they can" is popular, too. A
>>>> lot of our customers are too busy writing and testing programs to spend
>>>> much time on c.l.f.
>>>
>>> Yet it is these same 'clf' folk whom you permit (rely on) to define Forth via
>>> the Standard.
>>
>> A significant number of the voting members (according to the published
>> Forth 2012) are rarely if ever on c.l.f., and a number of c.l.f regulars
>> aren't on the Standards team (including myself).
>>
>> The Standards team needs (and, fortunately, has) a number of
>> professional Forth programmers who are primarily engaged in "writing and
>> testing Forth programs". That's an important point of view.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Elizabeth
>
> Forth-200x is owned entirely by Forth Inc. --- the whole bit with having a
"standards team" is just a charade to make the world think that
Forth-200x is
representative of a "Forth community" somewhere --- this subterfuge is
necessary
because nobody will take a standard seriously if it is owned by a
corporation.
This is called "astro-turfing" --- making a corporate interest appear to
be a
grassroots interest.
>
> Stephen Pelc makes money from "joint projects" with Forth Inc. (meaning that
you do the selling, then he does the programming), so he is obliged to
vote as
Leon Wagner tells him to vote. For example, he dutifully accepted {:
for locals
because { is used for multi-line comments in Forth Inc., despite the
fact that
this pulls the rug out from under all of his own legacy code that uses {
for locals (and all of the legacy code from everybody else in the Forth
community).
>
> Anton Ertl is just a puppet. He is currently making the ridiculous claim that
it is ANS-Forth compliant for FIND to abort when given certain words
(IF, semicolon, etc.).
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/oXXQAGDKP7w%5B1-25%5D
> He is just making a fool out of himself in public --- this is obviously being
done to prevent people from writing a outer-interpreter in gForth,
meaning that
they can't write a cross-compiler in gForth in competition with Forth
Inc. and
MPE. I defeated him with my disambiguifiers though --- now FIND works
correctly
for all words in the dictionary in both VFX and gForth.
>
> ANS-Forth and Forth-200x both are grossly dishonest --- this is not helping
Forth programmers --- this is all about preventing Forth programmers
from writing
certain kinds of programs (cross-compilers), which just happen to be the
kinds of
programs that are worth money.
>
> I made money writing a cross-compiler in Forth (UR/Forth) when I worked for
Testra. Because of this, you have always hated me and have always denied
that
I am a Forth programmer at all (going way back to 2009 when I first
showed up
on CLF and you enthusiastically agreed with your little attack poodle
Passaniti
that my code "sucks" and is "crap").
>
You clearly don't know how standards groups work.
Is there a point to your endless Elizabeth Rather comments or are you
stuck cerebral loop?
w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-10 14:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0rSdnS9XwLPeLdLInZ2dnUU7-a2dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #38945 |
Walter Banks wrote: " " *PLONK*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-10 20:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <miocqf$jq7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38948 |
on 10/05/2015 20:23:42, Richard Owlett wrote: > Walter Banks wrote: > " " > *PLONK* > > I think the terrible formatting caused you to plonk the plonkee, not the plonker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 01:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1m77pmtcl3b6p.1r29wrgpbdjmj.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #38951 |
Op Sun, 10 May 2015 20:51:43 +0100 schreef Alex McDonald: > on 10/05/2015 20:23:42, Richard Owlett wrote: >> Walter Banks wrote: >> " " >> *PLONK* >> >> > > I think the terrible formatting caused you to plonk the plonkee, not the > plonker. My newsreader had the same problem. But, unexpectedly, Google Groups shows a decent quote. -- Coos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-10 23:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Apology to Walter Banks - was [Re: FORTH - How Does It Work?] |
| Message-ID | <55502B8F.7020809@cloud85.net> |
| In reply to | #38951 |
Alex McDonald wrote: > on 10/05/2015 20:23:42, Richard Owlett wrote: >> Walter Banks wrote: >> "" >> *PLONK* >> >> > > I think the terrible formatting caused you to plonk the plonkee, not the > plonker. > Alex, you are correct. I just did a sided by side comparison of hugh's diatribe and Walter Banks' reply. I was blaming him for hugh's drivel. Mr. Banks, will you accept my apology?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 07:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Apology to Walter Banks - was [Re: FORTH - How Does It Work?] |
| Message-ID | <miq3i4$78c$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #38955 |
On 11/05/2015 12:09 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: > Alex McDonald wrote: >> on 10/05/2015 20:23:42, Richard Owlett wrote: >>> Walter Banks wrote: >>> "" >>> *PLONK* >>> >>> >> >> I think the terrible formatting caused you to plonk the plonkee, not the >> plonker. >> > > Alex, you are correct. I just did a sided by side comparison of hugh's > diatribe and Walter Banks' reply. I was blaming him for hugh's drivel. > > Mr. Banks, will you accept my apology? > > Sure, no problem. The post originally bounced for long lines. The tablet I was using did a less nice line wrap before it was re-posted. I should have hand edited it w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 11:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Apology to Walter Banks - was [Re: FORTH - How Does It Work?] |
| Message-ID | <miqi3g$l5t$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38955 |
On 5/11/2015 12:09 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: > Alex McDonald wrote: >> on 10/05/2015 20:23:42, Richard Owlett wrote: >>> Walter Banks wrote: >>> "" >>> *PLONK* >>> >>> >> >> I think the terrible formatting caused you to plonk the plonkee, not the >> plonker. >> > > Alex, you are correct. I just did a sided by side comparison of hugh's > diatribe and Walter Banks' reply. I was blaming him for hugh's drivel. > > Mr. Banks, will you accept my apology? You can also apologize to the rest of us for having to read your public announcement of a private act. There is no point to telling the world you are kill-filing someone other than stroking your own ego. Next time kill-file the person and just keep it to yourself please. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-10 19:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec930a5e-5d5d-4e46-b4eb-422e7dba47c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38945 |
On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 10:38:35 AM UTC-7, Walter Banks wrote:
> On 10/05/2015 1:09 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> > Anton Ertl is just a puppet. He is currently making the ridiculous claim
> > that it is ANS-Forth compliant for FIND to abort when given certain words
> > (IF, semicolon, etc.).
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/oXXQAGDKP7w%5B1-25%5D
> > He is just making a fool out of himself in public --- this is obviously
> > being done to prevent people from writing a outer-interpreter in gForth,
> > meaning that they can't write a cross-compiler in gForth in competition
> > with Forth Inc. and MPE. I defeated him with my disambiguifiers though ---
> > now FIND works correctly for all words in the dictionary in both VFX
> > and gForth.
> You clearly don't know how standards groups work.
A standards group is supposed to represent the programming community.
The ANS-Forth standard gives us section 4.1.2. ("Ambiguous Conditions"). It says this is an ambiguous condition: "attempting to obtain the execution token, (e.g., with 6.1.0070 ', 6.1.1550 FIND, etc.) of a definition with undefined interpretation semantics."
So, what part of the Forth community asked for this? Apparently, when the ANS-Forth committee was in meeting, there were Forth programmers marching in the street outside with signs that said: "Give us ambiguity or give us undefined behavior!"
Forth programmers from around the world were sending in emails daily that said: "We hate it when FIND returns an xt for every word in the dictionary and also tells us if it is immediate or non-immediate. We demand that FIND should either abort on some of the words, or should return an xt that aborts when executed. We also demand that words like IF should sometimes be immediate and sometimes be non-immediate, in the event that they have an xt --- of course, if FIND just aborts on them, then nobody knows if they are immediate or non-immediate, which is ever better."
Forth programmers were crying: "It is wrong for us to write cross-compilers! We shouldn't be allowed! This is unfair competition for Forth Inc. and MPE. But we can't stop ourselves from doing it, so we demand that ANS-Forth be crippled with a FIND that fails about half the time, giving us a baffling error-message. This is the only way that we can squelch our urge to write Forth programs that could be sold for money."
All of this is total baloney! Every Forth programmer wants FIND to work correctly. Anton Ertl's wild claims about how Forth is ambiguous and undefined are just whitewash for sabotage. ANS-Forth is cripple-ware --- it was sabotaged with a FIND that doesn't work correctly about half the time --- this was done to prevent people from writing cross-compilers in competition with the corporate big-dollar cross-compilers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 07:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <miq524$bgp$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #38954 |
On 10/05/2015 10:18 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 10:38:35 AM UTC-7, Walter Banks wrote:
>> On 10/05/2015 1:09 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Anton Ertl is just a puppet. He is currently making the ridiculous claim
>>> that it is ANS-Forth compliant for FIND to abort when given certain words
>>> (IF, semicolon, etc.).
>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/oXXQAGDKP7w%5B1-25%5D
>>> He is just making a fool out of himself in public --- this is obviously
>>> being done to prevent people from writing a outer-interpreter in gForth,
>>> meaning that they can't write a cross-compiler in gForth in competition
>>> with Forth Inc. and MPE. I defeated him with my disambiguifiers though ---
>>> now FIND works correctly for all words in the dictionary in both VFX
>>> and gForth.
>
>> You clearly don't know how standards groups work.
>
> A standards group is supposed to represent the programming community.
>
> The ANS-Forth standard gives us section 4.1.2. ("Ambiguous Conditions"). It says
> this is an ambiguous condition: "attempting to obtain the execution
token, (e.g.,
> with 6.1.0070 ', 6.1.1550 FIND, etc.) of a definition with undefined
> interpretation semantics."
>
> So, what part of the Forth community asked for this? Apparently,
> when the ANS-Forth committee was in meeting, there were Forth
> programmers marching in the street outside with signs that said:
> "Give us ambiguity or give us undefined behavior!"
>
> Forth programmers from around the world were sending in emails
> daily that said: "We hate it when FIND returns an xt for every
> word in the dictionary and also tells us if it is immediate or
> non-immediate. We demand that FIND should either abort on some
> of the words, or should return an xt that aborts when executed.
> We also demand that words like IF should sometimes be immediate
> and sometimes be non-immediate, in the event that they have an
> xt --- of course, if FIND just aborts on them, then nobody knows
> if they are immediate or non-immediate, which is ever better."
>
> Forth programmers were crying: "It is wrong for us to write
> cross-compilers! We shouldn't be allowed! This is unfair
> competition for Forth Inc. and MPE. But we can't stop ourselves
> from doing it, so we demand that ANS-Forth be crippled with a
> FIND that fails about half the time, giving us a baffling
> error-message. This is the only way that we can squelch our urge
> to write Forth programs that could be sold for money."
>
> All of this is total baloney! Every Forth programmer wants
> FIND to work correctly. Anton Ertl's wild claims about how
> Forth is ambiguous and undefined are just whitewash for sabotage.
> ANS-Forth is cripple-ware --- it was sabotaged with a FIND that
> doesn't work correctly about half the time --- this was done to
> prevent people from writing cross-compilers in competition with
> the corporate big-dollar cross-compilers.
>
As I said you don't understand how standard groups work. Make your
arguments to the standards group and back them up with examples of
standard practices from your tool set. Standards groups are there to
define current standard practices for purposes of compatibility between
tool sets.
w..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web