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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #30077 > unrolled thread

A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows)

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

Contents

  A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) roger.levy@gmail.com - 2014-05-03 21:19 -0700
    Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-03 22:22 -0700
    Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-05-04 08:24 +0200
      Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 03:44 -0700
        Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-05-04 14:46 +0200
          Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 09:21 -0700
            Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 13:28 -0700
              Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 13:38 -0700
                Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 13:53 -0700
      Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 13:36 -0700
        Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-05-04 23:27 +0200
          Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 14:39 -0700
          Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 14:44 -0700
            Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-05-05 07:35 +0200
    Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-05-04 21:51 -0700
      Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-05 09:49 -0700
        Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-05-05 22:55 -0700
          Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 01:21 -0700
            Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 02:07 -0700
              Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 07:12 -0700
                Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 07:15 -0700
                  Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2014-05-07 09:28 -0500
                  Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 09:23 -0700
                    Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 09:56 -0700
                      Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 09:57 -0700
                        Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 10:02 -0700
                          Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 10:08 -0700
                            Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 12:03 -0700
                              Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 12:12 -0700
                        Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-07 08:16 -1000
                          Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 11:33 -0700
                            Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-05-07 22:32 -0700
                              Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-05-08 01:50 -0700
                                Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-08 10:24 +0000
                                  Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-08 09:05 -1000
                                Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-08 09:00 -1000
                                  Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 12:09 -0700
                                    Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-05-08 20:11 +0000
                                      Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-09 01:22 +0200
                                        Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-08 17:08 -1000
                                    Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-08 11:24 -1000
                                      Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 15:25 -0700
                                      Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-09 01:30 +0200
                                        Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-10 08:42 +0000
                                          Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-10 15:30 +0200
                                            Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-10 14:11 +0000
                                              Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-10 16:26 +0200
                                                Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-10 14:37 +0000
                                                  Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-10 21:17 +0200
                                          Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-10 10:45 -1000
                                            Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 14:28 -0700
                                              Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-10 11:41 -1000
                                                Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 14:47 -0700
                                      Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 03:08 -0700
                                    Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 14:44 -0700
                      Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-07 20:18 +0100
                        Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 12:34 -0700
                          Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-09 15:55 +0100
                            Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 10:22 -0700
                              Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-09 22:13 +0100
                                Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 15:15 -0700
                          Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-10 03:09 +0000
                            Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) mhx@iae.nl - 2014-05-09 23:06 -0700
                              Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-10 09:01 +0100
                            Parameter passing when calling C anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-10 09:02 +0000
                              Re: Parameter passing when calling C stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-05-10 14:40 +0000
                                Re: Parameter passing when calling C anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-10 15:26 +0000
                                  Re: Parameter passing when calling C stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2014-05-11 09:46 +0000
                                    Re: Parameter passing when calling C anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-11 14:57 +0000
                                    Re: Parameter passing when calling C Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-11 20:37 +0200
            Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 04:03 -0700
    Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Zbigniew <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2014-05-07 16:19 +0000
    Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-11 11:49 -0700
      Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2014-05-12 18:34 -0700
        Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 06:40 -0700
          Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Alexander Skobelev <al.skobelev@gmail.com> - 2014-05-13 23:55 -0700
          Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 01:39 -0700
            Re: A new commercial indie game made in SwiftForth (Windows) Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-14 07:08 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#30150

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 10:12:33 AM UTC-4, Roger Levy wrote:
> > 
> 
> > I don't mind paying the $5, but if I do so I'm more interested in
> 
> > 
> 
> > studying and modifying the game than playing it.  Maybe you could make
> 
> > 
> 
> > it like minecraft, where players are encouraged to extend it themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a fantastic idea!
> 
> 
> 
> I've brought it to Mike (he's the creator).  How much would you be willing to pay for a source version to play with?  Is $40 too much?

On second thought, he's probably going to say no.

But maybe a game designed from the ground up to work for that model, or a sort of "game engine + complete example game" package would be interesting?

But how many Forth programmers would be in the market for something like this?

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

#30151

Roger Levy wrote:
>
>> I've brought it to Mike (he's the creator).  How much would you be willing to pay for a source version to play with?  Is $40 too much?
>
> On second thought, he's probably going to say no.
>
> But maybe a game designed from the ground up to work for that model, or a sort of "game engine + complete example game" package would be interesting?
>
> But how many Forth programmers would be in the market for something like this?
>

Turn that last question around, would it have features that would 
attract gamers to Forth?

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

#30154

Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> writes:
> But maybe a game designed from the ground up to work for that model,
> or a sort of "game engine + complete example game" package would be
> interesting?
>
> But how many Forth programmers would be in the market for something
> like this?

Surely not enough ;-).  But I thought part of the idea was to get
newbies interested in Forth.

I guess it only has any hope if it could either 1) work with a free
Forth like Gforth, or 2) work with the evaluation version of Swift
(and you'd better check with forth.com before attempting that).
Swiftforth is a great product from everything I hear, but I couldn't
imagine spending hundreds of $$ on a copy just to play and modify a game
when I wasn't getting paid for it.

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

#30155

> 
> > But how many Forth programmers would be in the market for something
> 
> > like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Surely not enough ;-).  But I thought part of the idea was to get
> 
> newbies interested in Forth.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it only has any hope if it could either 1) work with a free
> 
> Forth like Gforth, or 2) work with the evaluation version of Swift
> 
> (and you'd better check with forth.com before attempting that).
> 
> Swiftforth is a great product from everything I hear, but I couldn't
> 
> imagine spending hundreds of $$ on a copy just to play and modify a game
> 
> when I wasn't getting paid for it.


There are 2 angles here.

1) Make the model "source distribution only".  The eval version of SwiftForth is free and full featured minus turnkey export.

2) I know of a really impressive forth called iForth http://home.iae.nl/users/mhx/i4faq.html
the license is incredibly liberal.  Pay ~$140 and use it for whatever the fuck you want.  This is ideal for tooling it into a complete game dev environment (something I've had an interest in for years and have abandoned several tries), or simply as a game that can have modding scripts passed in.

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

#30156

Actually ... I just recalled using the compiler features of SwiftForth apps is prohibited in the license.  So concentrate on just the iForth angle.

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

#30157

Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> writes:
> Actually ... I just recalled using the compiler features of SwiftForth
> apps is prohibited in the license.  So concentrate on just the iForth
> angle.

Bernd's Android port of Gforth has OpenGPL bindings if I understand it
right.  Maybe that can do the job, if you want an Android game?

I think making the person spend $140 on iForth would be a pretty
difficult sell, although iForth generates very efficient code. 

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

#30158

I tried GForth years ago.  It think my verdict was "too bloated".  

> I think making the person spend $140 on iForth would be a pretty
> 
> difficult sell, although iForth generates very efficient code.

I think that technically I could give iForth away, since his license states "do anything you want with it".  But I'm not that big of a dick so it would be a pared down version that is designed solely for scripting my game engine.

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

#30161

Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> writes:
> I tried GForth years ago.  It think my verdict was "too bloated".  

Are you saying SwiftForth is smaller?  I guess that's possible since
Swift is metacompiled and works somewhat differently, but both are
pretty featureful implementations.

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

#30162

> 
> Are you saying SwiftForth is smaller?  I guess that's possible since
> 
> Swift is metacompiled and works somewhat differently, but both are
> 
> pretty featureful implementations.

It might have been that at the time I was looking for a Forth I could modify easily enough, and GForth's coding style IIRC was not very nice to work with.  Working from distant memory here though.  So by "bloated" maybe I meant that the word definitions themselves were long-winded rather than just the total # of system words.

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

#30159

On 5/7/14 6:57 AM, Roger Levy wrote:
> Actually ... I just recalled using the compiler features of SwiftForth apps is prohibited in the license.  So concentrate on just the iForth angle.
>

It's only the meta-compiler that can't be used in the eval version. The 
standard SwiftForth compiler for user code is definitely available. In 
other words, you can use it to write programs, but not to generate a 
different Forth.

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]

#30160

> 
> It's only the meta-compiler that can't be used in the eval version. The 
> 
> standard SwiftForth compiler for user code is definitely available. In 
> 
> other words, you can use it to write programs, but not to generate a 
> 
> different Forth.
> 
>

I'm confused.  I contacted FORTH Inc. a while back asking if it was OK to make a game that compiled source files on-the-fly, or allow users to write their own games in Forth so long as they couldn't use PROGRAM without having a SwiftForth license, and was told flatly that both were prohibited.

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

#30174

On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 11:33:24 AM UTC-7, Roger Levy wrote:
> > It's only the meta-compiler that can't be used in the eval version. The 
> > standard SwiftForth compiler for user code is definitely available. In 
> > other words, you can use it to write programs, but not to generate a 
> > different Forth.
> 
> I'm confused.  I contacted FORTH Inc. a while back asking if it was OK to make a game that compiled source files on-the-fly, or allow users to write their own games in Forth so long as they couldn't use PROGRAM without having a SwiftForth license, and was told flatly that both were prohibited.

SwiftForth doesn't allow compilation of Forth code during the run-time of the program (generally known as "meta-compilation") --- this largely kills the whole point of using Forth rather than C.

AFAIK, VFX does allow compilation of Forth code during the run-time of the program --- but you should ask Stephen Pelc about that.

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

#30181

Hi Hugh,

I think that you misunderstand the meaning of meta-compilation.

> SwiftForth doesn't allow ...
I purchased SwiftForth last year, largely to get support for the latest Windows multitasker - it comes with complete source, so there is nothing that is "not allowed", everything is under my control.

Taking the most obvious interpretation of what you say :
> [ Forth, Inc. don't allow ] compilation of Forth code during the run-time of 
> the program.
Oh dear. Most of my SwiftForth programs interpret Forth source at run time, if only to load a configuration file. Usually I use a sealed vocabulary to limit the destructive power of an unchained user. Sometimes I even expose ':' . 

> (generally known as "meta-compilation") 
No, this is not meta-compilation.

> this largely kills the whole point of using Forth rather than C.
Here I agree, in that it would make Forth pointless, if what you say is true...

Forth, Inc. and MPE have to protect themselves from pirates.
I could very easily type ( in SwiftForth ) :
starter QUIT program MYFORTH.EXE

and sell my new Forth system, but that is not allowed.

AFAIK everything else is allowed that does not produce a new Forth system ...

I'm sure others will correct me if I am wrong :-)

Best regards,
Howerd

On Thursday, 8 May 2014 06:32:58 UTC+1, hughag...@yahoo.com  wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 11:33:24 AM UTC-7, Roger Levy wrote:
> 
> > > It's only the meta-compiler that can't be used in the eval version. The 
> 
> > > standard SwiftForth compiler for user code is definitely available. In 
> 
> > > other words, you can use it to write programs, but not to generate a 
> 
> > > different Forth.
> 
> > 
> 
> > I'm confused.  I contacted FORTH Inc. a while back asking if it was OK to make a game that compiled source files on-the-fly, or allow users to write their own games in Forth so long as they couldn't use PROGRAM without having a SwiftForth license, and was told flatly that both were prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> SwiftForth doesn't allow compilation of Forth code during the run-time of the program (generally known as "meta-compilation") --- this largely kills the whole point of using Forth rather than C.
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIK, VFX does allow compilation of Forth code during the run-time of the program --- but you should ask Stephen Pelc about that.

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

#30183

In article <22c56209-b95d-4af7-8307-c4a733fb06da@googlegroups.com>,
Howerd  <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi Hugh,
>
>I think that you misunderstand the meaning of meta-compilation.
>
>> SwiftForth doesn't allow ...
>I purchased SwiftForth last year, largely to get support for the latest
>Windows multitasker - it comes with complete source, so there is nothing
>that is "not allowed", everything is under my control.
>
>Taking the most obvious interpretation of what you say :
>> [ Forth, Inc. don't allow ] compilation of Forth code during the run-time of
>> the program.
>Oh dear. Most of my SwiftForth programs interpret Forth source at run
>time, if only to load a configuration file. Usually I use a sealed
>vocabulary to limit the destructive power of an unchained user.
>Sometimes I even expose ':' .

There is a difference between having a Forth and having a turnkey
program that interprets.

When I write a turnkey program in ciforth (lina) the main program
looks typically like

: main
   if the first argument starts with a - :
    EVALUATE it
  else
    sniff out the option
;

making the interpreter indispensible.

E.g. like so:
    \ Handle options or files, end with accepting stdin.
    : main    init BEGIN ARGC 1 > WHILE  1 ARG[] OVER C@ &- = IF EVALUATE ELSE
       process-file SHIFT-ARGS THEN REPEAT process ;

The code contains stuff like
    : -h   "
    USAGE : uudecode [-f <forced-name>]  <input1> [<input2> [<input3?...> ]
    uudecode all uudecode blocks in all input files.
    -f forces the names of the output files,
    if more than one name is needed, digits in <forced-name> are incremented.

    ERRORS : 1001 you must specify a file name with the -f option.
             1002 forced file name too long.
             1003 I cannot open one of the named files.
             1004 Copying a file descriptor to 0 failed.
             1005 There is a uudecode 'begin' but no corresponding 'end'
             1006 An output file with a forced name couldn't be openened.
             1007 The output file name couldn't be morphed into so many names.
             1008 Too many chars in a line for our buffersize.
    " TYPE  BYE
    ;

and
    \ Consume -f option and argument.
    : -f   SHIFT-ARGS   ARGC 1 = 1001 ?ERROR
       1 ARG[] DUP max-file > 1002 ?ERROR file-name $!
       SHIFT-ARGS ;

A calculation program can have   `` 1 ARG[] EVALUATE '' and be used
like
    factorise 111111
or
    factorise ' WANT $-PREFIX $123456789'
(Meaning: before interpreting the number, code is loaded to understand
$ prefixes, all within one argument.).


>> (generally known as "meta-compilation")
>No, this is not meta-compilation.
>
>> this largely kills the whole point of using Forth rather than C.
>Here I agree, in that it would make Forth pointless, if what you say is true...
>
>Forth, Inc. and MPE have to protect themselves from pirates.
>I could very easily type ( in SwiftForth ) :
>starter QUIT program MYFORTH.EXE
>
>and sell my new Forth system, but that is not allowed.
>
>AFAIK everything else is allowed that does not produce a new Forth system ...
>
>I'm sure others will correct me if I am wrong :-)

This is how the lina license works. If your derived program is not
a Forth system, it is not a derived work in the GPL sense, and
you're free to distribute it without source.
Using the Forth interpreter mechanism doesn't make a program a
"Forth system".

>
>Best regards,
>Howerd
>
>On Thursday, 8 May 2014 06:32:58 UTC+1, hughag...@yahoo.com  wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 7, 2014 11:33:24 AM UTC-7, Roger Levy wrote:
>>
>> > > It's only the meta-compiler that can't be used in the eval version. The
>>
>> > > standard SwiftForth compiler for user code is definitely available. In
>>
>> > > other words, you can use it to write programs, but not to generate a
>>
>> > > different Forth.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I'm confused.  I contacted FORTH Inc. a while back asking if it was
>OK to make a game that compiled source files on-the-fly, or allow users
>to write their own games in Forth so long as they couldn't use PROGRAM
>without having a SwiftForth license, and was told flatly that both were
>prohibited.
>>
>>
>>
>> SwiftForth doesn't allow compilation of Forth code during the run-time
>of the program (generally known as "meta-compilation") --- this largely
>kills the whole point of using Forth rather than C.
>>
>>
>>
>> AFAIK, VFX does allow compilation of Forth code during the run-time of
>the program --- but you should ask Stephen Pelc about that.

This kind of confusion makes it harder to promote programs built in Forth.
I think it's a pity.

P.S.
EVALUATE is dangerous:
factorise '"rm -rf /" SYSTEM'
is very bad if you're root. I see no point in prohibiting this where a
user could do
    '"rm -rf /" SYSTEM'
directly.

Groetjes Albert
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

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

#30198

On 5/8/2014 12:24 AM, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <22c56209-b95d-4af7-8307-c4a733fb06da@googlegroups.com>,
> Howerd  <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
...
>
>>> (generally known as "meta-compilation")
>> No, this is not meta-compilation.

Correct. Meta-compilation is generating a new Forth for the same or a 
different target, not adding definitions to the current system.

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]

#30197

On 5/7/2014 10:50 PM, Howerd wrote:
> Forth, Inc. and MPE have to protect themselves from pirates.
> I could very easily type ( in SwiftForth ) :
> starter QUIT program MYFORTH.EXE
>
> and sell my new Forth system, but that is not allowed.
>
> AFAIK everything else is allowed that does not produce a new Forth system ...
>
> I'm sure others will correct me if I am wrong:-)

There should be a clear statement in the manual about what words 
can/cannot be exposed to users. I haven't looked in a while, but as I 
recall interpreting text is fine, and it's ok for your program to 
compile options and features, but : etc. shouldn't be exposed to the 
users (which can be avoided with sealed vocabularies).

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]

#30199

> There should be a clear statement in the manual about what words 
> 
> can/cannot be exposed to users. I haven't looked in a while, but as I 
> 
> recall interpreting text is fine, and it's ok for your program to 
> 
> compile options and features, but : etc. shouldn't be exposed to the 
> 
> users (which can be avoided with sealed vocabularies).
>

You know, restricting : and other defining words seems extreme.  That gives up an enormous advantage in Forth.

I think the only restrictions should be the metacompiler, assembler, and PROGRAM.  Especially if the wordset exposed to "scripters" was restricted to a specific domain.  For instance no write-to-filesystem words and no Win32API access.  Letting users write their own scripts without having to write a new interpreter should be allowed.

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

#30200

On Thu, 8 May 2014 12:09:56 -0700 (PDT), Roger Levy
<roger.levy@gmail.com> wrote:

>You know, restricting : and other defining words seems extreme.  That gives=
> up an enormous advantage in Forth.

I'm scarred by the number of badly written and badly documented Forths
that appeared in the 1980s and early 1990s. Consequently, MPE policy
is based around the idea that if an end-user needs the documentation
for the Forth, a licence for the MPE docs is required. If it's just
what we term "engineering and maintenance access", e.g. config files
or setup, then please use the interpreter. We encourage people
doing this to acknowledge our copyright in their code and
documentation.

The interpreter is a very useful tool.

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]

#30208

Stephen Pelc wrote:

> On Thu, 8 May 2014 12:09:56 -0700 (PDT), Roger Levy
> <roger.levy@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>You know, restricting : and other defining words seems extreme.  That
>>gives=
>> up an enormous advantage in Forth.
> 
> I'm scarred by the number of badly written and badly documented Forths
> that appeared in the 1980s and early 1990s. Consequently, MPE policy
> is based around the idea that if an end-user needs the documentation
> for the Forth, a licence for the MPE docs is required. If it's just
> what we term "engineering and maintenance access", e.g. config files
> or setup, then please use the interpreter. We encourage people
> doing this to acknowledge our copyright in their code and
> documentation.
> 
> The interpreter is a very useful tool.

I'm coming from the free software side, so we don't like imposed 
restrictions.  Therefore, here are some examples where the compiler is very 
useful, too:

* Gerald's game he presented on EuroForth: The game engine is written in a 
mix of C++, GL Shader Language, and an embedded Forth.  The actual level 
design is written in Forth.  It's actually a 3D turtle graphics which 
generates the OpenGL vertices.  Of course, it is compiled; speed matters.  
This level design language is a typical application of Forth as domain-
specific language, and it's using all the available features.

* Open Network Forth: One key element of ONF was that each node started with 
a pretty bare system that could do communication, but didn't know how to 
control the things it was in charge off - that stuff was pushed as source 
code over the network and then compiled on each node.

* Other systems with similar attributes: EuroPay (pushing tokenized source 
code to the terminals), OpenFirmware (tokenized source code in the driver 
ROMs of the cards).

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://bernd-paysan.de/

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

#30212

On 5/8/14 1:22 PM, Bernd Paysan wrote:
...
> I'm coming from the free software side, so we don't like imposed
> restrictions.  Therefore, here are some examples where the compiler is very
> useful, too:
>
> * Gerald's game he presented on EuroForth: The game engine is written in a
> mix of C++, GL Shader Language, and an embedded Forth.  The actual level
> design is written in Forth.  It's actually a 3D turtle graphics which
> generates the OpenGL vertices.  Of course, it is compiled; speed matters.
> This level design language is a typical application of Forth as domain-
> specific language, and it's using all the available features.

Depending on what features of the domain-specific language will be 
available to users, it's quite possible that a suitable arrangement can 
be negotiated.

> * Open Network Forth: One key element of ONF was that each node started with
> a pretty bare system that could do communication, but didn't know how to
> control the things it was in charge off - that stuff was pushed as source
> code over the network and then compiled on each node.

Assuming all the various control modules were written under license, 
that would be just fine.

> * Other systems with similar attributes: EuroPay (pushing tokenized source
> code to the terminals), OpenFirmware (tokenized source code in the driver
> ROMs of the cards).
>

We definitely had an arrangement with Europay covering their needs, and 
each version Open Firmware was developed by the company that was 
distributing it, and they set their licensing appropriately.

Business people are, for the most part, neither dumb nor blind (those 
who are, don't stay in business long). They will make whatever 
arrangements will protect their business interests and serve their 
customers' needs appropriately.

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]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web