Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #41632 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-01 00:49 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-06 01:37 -0400 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 132 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 00:49 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-09-01 04:18 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Steve Graham <jsgrahamus@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-01 09:51 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Andreas Wagner <andreas.wagner@lowfatcomputing.org> - 2015-09-01 10:23 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-02 13:53 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Greg <borota@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 17:35 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 18:27 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 21:04 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 00:27 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 21:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 01:10 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 22:19 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 23:31 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 07:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 08:10 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 09:05 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-09-05 09:07 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 13:08 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-05 16:32 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-05 22:19 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 13:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-06 12:09 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2015-09-06 13:27 -0500
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-07 15:36 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 09:46 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 14:20 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 20:52 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 12:11 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 19:56 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Greg <borota@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 09:39 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? mhx@iae.nl - 2015-09-06 13:01 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 18:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 19:43 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 20:59 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-08 19:46 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 13:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-08 17:27 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-09 03:35 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-08 19:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 20:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-08 20:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-08 21:00 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 21:35 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? mhx@iae.nl - 2015-09-10 15:20 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-10 17:26 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-10 14:57 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? julian.fondren@endurance.com - 2015-09-10 20:47 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2015-09-11 10:49 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-11 10:16 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 07:42 +0300
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 18:41 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 19:24 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-08 20:59 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Greg <borota@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 15:47 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-11 08:15 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-10-04 19:59 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-04 17:48 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-04 21:10 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2015-10-05 00:53 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 03:51 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-04 18:58 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-04 23:35 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-04 23:44 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-05 08:54 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-05 12:58 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 01:35 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 02:58 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:05 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 04:22 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 15:00 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-06 16:02 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 07:49 +0300
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-06 15:04 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-09 14:16 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 09:34 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-06 09:08 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-06 20:49 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-07 00:56 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-06 21:11 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-09 21:07 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-10 19:38 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-10 20:46 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-11 01:16 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-10 22:50 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-04 21:21 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-05 08:26 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 07:13 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-10 00:12 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 11:48 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-08 20:55 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-09 02:28 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? november.nihal@gmail.com - 2015-09-09 03:36 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Marek Brunda <marekb@phoenics.org> - 2015-09-09 03:59 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-09 07:34 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? jim.brakefield@ieee.org - 2015-09-09 12:32 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-10 17:10 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-09 18:59 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 12:28 -0700
structs/unions/records (was: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction?) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-09 07:10 +0000
Re: structs/unions/records (was: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction?) hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-09 02:18 -0700
Re: structs/unions/records rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 23:27 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-06 23:18 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-09-07 12:57 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 09:55 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 18:45 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-09-08 00:13 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-08 01:51 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? awegel@arcor.de (Alexander Wegel) - 2015-09-08 00:13 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-07 18:27 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? borota@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 12:23 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 16:14 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-07 17:39 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 01:39 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 03:12 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2015-09-05 09:02 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-05 16:47 +0000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 11:13 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? josv@planet.nl - 2015-09-01 12:37 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2015-09-01 22:02 +0200
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 03:45 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-08 07:54 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-08 19:08 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 15:00 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-09 23:18 -0400
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? p.lad.work@gmail.com - 2015-10-05 05:04 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2015-10-05 06:39 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 18:44 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-05 17:47 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 21:58 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-06 10:55 -0700
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-06 09:13 -1000
Re: Could Forth be getting a bit of traction? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 01:37 -0400
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 07:54 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <OZOdnXY8jIpwvXLInZ2dnUU7-WmdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #41850 |
On 9/8/15 12:45 AM, Mux wrote:
> So while we're on (de)structs... In ye olde days of 6502 programming, I used what I called 'vertical arrays' which is basically a struct, and to this day, I use as an alternative to structs.
>
> variable x 16 allot
> variable y 16 allot
> variable z 16 allot
>
> : get_x ( index -- x ) x + @ ;
> : get_y ( index -- y ) y + @ ;
> : get_z ( index -- z ) z + @ ;
>
> while technically not a struct in the C sense in that the, it's every bit as powerful without having to declare / create structures in forths that don't have them.
Your use of @ implies you meant this to be an array of cells, but you
ALLOTed in bytes :-)
more Forthish way to do this is:
: ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE CELLS ALLOT
DOES> ( i -- a ) SWAP CELLS + ;
ARRAY X ARRAY Y ARRAY Z
And if you wanted to build in bounds checking, etc., you can do it
centrally in ARRAY. Not at all C-ish.
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 | 2015-09-08 19:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2351997-e2af-435f-8a60-c736440e9b93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41854 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 10:54:54 AM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 9/8/15 12:45 AM, Mux wrote: > > So while we're on (de)structs... In ye olde days of 6502 programming, I used what I called 'vertical arrays' which is basically a struct, and to this day, I use as an alternative to structs. > > > > variable x 16 allot > > variable y 16 allot > > variable z 16 allot > > > > : get_x ( index -- x ) x + @ ; > > : get_y ( index -- y ) y + @ ; > > : get_z ( index -- z ) z + @ ; > > > > while technically not a struct in the C sense in that the, it's every bit as powerful without having to declare / create structures in forths that don't have them. > > Your use of @ implies you meant this to be an array of cells, but you > ALLOTed in bytes :-) > > more Forthish way to do this is: > > : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE CELLS ALLOT > DOES> ( i -- a ) SWAP CELLS + ; > > ARRAY X ARRAY Y ARRAY Z > > And if you wanted to build in bounds checking, etc., you can do it > centrally in ARRAY. Not at all C-ish. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth The use of multiple arrays, one for each field, is the work-around that was used in QBasic as I described previously. Note that the code Elizabeth Rather is presenting was copied directly out of "Starting Forth." It has the index beginning at 0 as is typical. AFAIK, all the code in "Starting Forth" was written by Chuck Moore. The following is the ONLY example of code that that Elizabeth Rather has ever posted that wasn't copied directly out of "Starting Forth," but which she wrote herself: On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:30:10 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > Here's [an array definer] presented in my Forth Application Techniques that I think is > far more useful than the FSL version: > > : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE DUP , CELLS ALLOT > DOES> ( n -- a) SWAP OVER @ OVER < OVER > 1 < OR ABORT" Out of Range" CELLS + ; Here she has the index starting at 1 rather than 0 because that is what she learned in COBOL --- at the time that she wrote this, she no longer had Chuck Moore around to write her code for her, so she had to take a stab at writing code herself. Aside from the fact that using multiple arrays rather than struts is clumsy and inefficient, none of these array definers are any good anyway. They aren't general-purpose because they only work for cell-sized elements. Also, the use of CREATE DOES> makes them grossly inefficient. The inherent inefficiency of CREATE DOES> has been discussed many times before, most recently here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.forth/yTvD4nqPGA4%5B101-125%5D BTW: Does anybody else find it ironic that this thread is titled, "Could Forth be getting a bit of traction?" --- and yet, we now have Elizabeth Rather promoting the use of multiple arrays each for a field, rather than structs --- our car is getting plenty of traction, but unfortunately we have our gear-shift in reverse...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mux <Yvo.Zoer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 15:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <260d2175-94ac-4613-abf7-5f907635e1e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41854 |
> Your use of @ implies you meant this to be an array of cells, but you > ALLOTed in bytes :-) > > more Forthish way to do this is: > > : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE CELLS ALLOT > DOES> ( i -- a ) SWAP CELLS + ; > > ARRAY X ARRAY Y ARRAY Z > > And if you wanted to build in bounds checking, etc., you can do it > centrally in ARRAY. Not at all C-ish. > > Cheers, > Elizabeth > Actually, I didn't. My forth core doesn't do bytes and only words :-) I've got my own minimal set of forth instructions similar to Chuck's machine forth which suffices nicely, at least for me. But yeah, if you're going to go by Ans-forth, you're correct. -Mux
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-09 23:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <msqsom$8bh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #41906 |
On 9/9/2015 6:00 PM, Mux wrote: >> Your use of @ implies you meant this to be an array of cells, but you >> ALLOTed in bytes :-) >> >> more Forthish way to do this is: >> >> : ARRAY ( n -- ) CREATE CELLS ALLOT >> DOES> ( i -- a ) SWAP CELLS + ; >> >> ARRAY X ARRAY Y ARRAY Z >> >> And if you wanted to build in bounds checking, etc., you can do it >> centrally in ARRAY. Not at all C-ish. >> >> Cheers, >> Elizabeth >> > Actually, I didn't. My forth core doesn't do bytes and only words :-) I've got my own minimal set of forth instructions similar to Chuck's machine forth which suffices nicely, at least for me. > > But yeah, if you're going to go by Ans-forth, you're correct. Nothing in ANS Forth that says a byte has to be 8 bits. So the code can work ok. The only non-ANS aspect is that the code should use CELLS to make it work correctly if run on another Forth system. Obviously not important in your case. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | p.lad.work@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 05:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0d8c85db-4883-4dbb-a832-dede46af2272@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41632 |
On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 08:49:33 UTC+1, Mark Wills wrote: > At last? > > Check out this link: > > https://moonforth.github.io/ > > Someone has spent a LOT of time on that. Also check out the links, which link to a lot of Forth related stuff that I haven't seen before. > > Brilliant stuff. Hi As a novice ,I have an hsforth .exe program i'd like to look at internally, How can i achieve this? Thanks in advance P Lad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | foxaudioresearch@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 06:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96aba352-9da9-4833-8795-1554e8944d4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42373 |
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:04:52 AM UTC-4, p.lad...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 08:49:33 UTC+1, Mark Wills wrote: > > At last? > > > > Check out this link: > > > > https://moonforth.github.io/ > > > > Someone has spent a LOT of time on that. Also check out the links, which link to a lot of Forth related stuff that I haven't seen before. > > > > Brilliant stuff. > > Hi As a novice ,I have an hsforth .exe program i'd like to look at internally, > How can i achieve this? > Thanks in advance > P Lad Hi P Lad, I may be one of the last people on the Planet that still plays with HSForth, however I have changed it a great deal to be closer to ANS compliance. It used a large number of word names that were completely different than industry practice even in the 1990s. If you FLOAD the file called TOOLS, you should have the word SHOW (SEE in most Forth systems) available to you that lets you de-compile hi-level code in a crude fashion. To see code words, I use the old DOS Debug program and the U command (Un-assemble) You have to find the CODE Address of the word with CA' and you must also know the segment address of the CODES segment, which you can see with .MEMORY After that it's a lot of study, since I don't believe Jim Kalihan ever released the source code after he shut down the commercial operation. I never reached out to him for it however so it remains a possibility I suppose. It was a very cool system in it's time, however it always irritated me that the source code provided was obfuscated so I have re-formatted all that over the years and made substantial changes (improvements IMHO) You can contact me directly if you have more questions. BF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 18:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <71ffaaf2-4d9e-4d79-82cd-ca00531942a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #41632 |
That is the thing about Forth. If you need something, then it is easy enough to make one that does whatever you needed EXACTLY how you WANT it to be done. If you don't need it, then fine, your program can not worry about it. "ANS Forth"? What IS "ANS Forth", really? Isn't it just a collection of very general guidelines for how specific Forth implementations could (should) present themselves in order to assist people who feel the urge to write Forth code that is reasonably portable? So when you say this: "ANS Forth is by simpletons and for simpletons who are incapable of learning any other language.", aren't you REALLY saying this: "Forth is by simpletons and for simpletons who are incapable of learning any other language."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 17:47 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <t5-dnbqmj9Dy2Y7LnZ2dnUU7-b_46u6z@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #42382 |
On 10/5/15 3:44 PM, Chris Curl wrote: > That is the thing about Forth. If you need something, then it is easy > enough to make one that does whatever you needed EXACTLY how you WANT > it to be done. If you don't need it, then fine, your program can not > worry about it. > > "ANS Forth"? What IS "ANS Forth", really? Isn't it just a collection > of very general guidelines for how specific Forth implementations > could (should) present themselves in order to assist people who feel > the urge to write Forth code that is reasonably portable? I'm not sure where you live, but in the US, we're familiar with the American National Standards Institute, or ANSI, that manages standards for everything from industrial robots to nuts and bolts, including all widely-used high-level languages (Fortran, COBOL, C, ...). To develop a standard, you have to have a "Technical Committee" (TC) formed according to rules that ensure participation by all interested groups (users, suppliers, organizations) and ensure extensive public review and acceptance. A TC must reach a consensus (90% agreement) on every technical issue. The TC that developed ANS Forth met 4x/yr from 1986-1993 in different parts of the US, and included not only all major Forth developers but also user organizations including NASA, Ford Motor Company, AT&T/NCR, Johns Hopkins Univ., and many others. Following acceptance of "ANSI X3.215-1994 Programming Languages -- Forth" (Forth94) a group formed under the rules of ISO (International Standards Organization) and approved ISO/IEC 15145:1997 (identical to ANS Forth). Forth94 was reaffirmed in 1999, and ISO Forth in 2013. The current standards effort has built on these standards. The intent of these standards was to define the language is sufficient detail and with sufficient stability as to facilitate portability of programs from one implementation to another, by a combination of specificity of language features and identification of areas where individual implementations may vary and where specific programs may have requirements and dependencies. "Standard Forth" is, in effect, an interface between systems and applications. In the 21 years since 1994, the existence of ANS Forth has enabled the language to be used in a wide variety of commercial and military applications all over the world, including numerous space systems (the most recent being the successful "Philae" Comet Lander. To all those who say the standard "killed" Forth, I say it ensured its survival. > So when you say this: > > "ANS Forth is by simpletons and for simpletons who are > incapable of learning any other language.", aren't you REALLY saying this: > > "Forth is by simpletons and for simpletons who are > incapable of learning any other language." > ...you are basically showing your ignorance. 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 | Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 21:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <793a3fde-c5df-40a1-bbcc-b836bff33bb3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42383 |
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 11:48:02 PM UTC-4, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > > ... > > So when you say this: > > > > "ANS Forth is by simpletons and for simpletons who are > > incapable of learning any other language.", aren't you REALLY saying this: > > > > "Forth is by simpletons and for simpletons who are > > incapable of learning any other language." > > > > ...you are basically showing your ignorance. Elizabeth, I live in America, and I am familiar with ANSI. My point there was that ANS Forth is, at its core, just an agreed-upon framework for the language, not the language or its extremely open nature, which is what he apparently has a problem with. I didn't say that about Forth or the standard, WJ said that, and frankly, I don't agree with that sentiment at all. What I was trying to get across was that his statement seems like a criticism of Forth, the language, not the standard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 10:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ccf2eb16-9539-4230-9a1d-38b66635ac5b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #42383 |
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:48:02 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > To all those who say the standard "killed" Forth, > I say it ensured its survival. From my perspective, I think that both stability and creativity are needed. What I mean is that there should be a standard, but that there also needs to be people creative enough and brave enough to step outside of those boundaries to experiment and through experimentation and consecutive refinement of non-standard features tested against real world tasks be willing to put time and effort into non-standard Forths.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 09:13 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <y7qdneZd-azBgInLnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #42397 |
On 10/6/15 7:55 AM, Jason Damisch wrote: > On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 8:48:02 PM UTC-7, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > >> To all those who say the standard "killed" Forth, >> I say it ensured its survival. > > From my perspective, I think that both stability and creativity are > needed. What I mean is that there should be a standard, but that > there also needs to be people creative enough and brave enough to > step outside of those boundaries to experiment and through > experimentation and consecutive refinement of non-standard features > tested against real world tasks be willing to put time and effort > into non-standard Forths. > Agreed. And this is why there are ongoing standardization efforts, to help incorporate better techniques and new features in a portable way. 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 | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-06 01:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <muvmjj$bce$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #42382 |
On 10/5/2015 9:44 PM, Chris Curl wrote: > That is the thing about Forth. If you need something, then it is easy > enough to make one that does whatever you needed EXACTLY how you WANT > it to be done. If you don't need it, then fine, your program can not > worry about it. > > "ANS Forth"? What IS "ANS Forth", really? Isn't it just a collection > of very general guidelines for how specific Forth implementations > could (should) present themselves in order to assist people who feel > the urge to write Forth code that is reasonably portable? > > So when you say this: > > "ANS Forth is by simpletons and for simpletons who are > incapable of learning any other language.", aren't you REALLY saying this: > > "Forth is by simpletons and for simpletons who are > incapable of learning any other language." I don't recall where anyone said either of these things... until now. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web