Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #30165 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-05-07 13:06 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-05-07 20:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 155 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
gforth too bloated ? Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 13:06 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 13:31 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-08 00:10 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 23:21 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> - 2014-05-08 04:07 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-08 14:21 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-09 17:36 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? dambere@web.de - 2014-05-09 15:01 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-10 00:05 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2014-05-10 00:30 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-10 09:16 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-10 03:27 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 20:42 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 22:32 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-07 21:06 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-09 04:14 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 13:42 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 11:48 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 15:18 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-09 09:19 -1000
Re: gforth too bloated ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-09 15:30 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-09 13:21 -1000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-10 05:16 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-10 05:28 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-10 10:39 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-10 12:04 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-11 12:10 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bill Long <blongo@gmail.com> - 2014-05-11 13:11 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Stan Barr <plan.b@dsl.pipex.com> - 2014-05-11 16:17 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bill Long <blongo@gmail.com> - 2014-05-11 17:10 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-11 08:34 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-11 22:12 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-12 00:38 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-12 00:35 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-05-11 23:29 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-11 23:37 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-05-11 23:40 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-12 00:39 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-12 10:20 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-05-12 05:10 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-13 09:17 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-05-13 04:28 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-12 03:19 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-13 16:40 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-13 07:56 -1000
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-14 11:52 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-14 08:15 -1000
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-16 16:09 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-16 09:42 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-16 17:21 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-16 10:45 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-13 12:56 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-14 12:03 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-14 09:17 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-14 16:50 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-05-14 20:26 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-05-14 20:38 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-14 20:02 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-15 14:22 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-15 17:39 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-15 15:03 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-15 15:06 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-15 15:32 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-16 02:13 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-15 20:18 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-16 04:08 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-16 04:28 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-16 09:23 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-17 07:52 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-17 09:19 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-17 11:51 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? Samuel DEVULDER <samuel-dot-devulder-at-laposte-dot-net> - 2014-05-17 22:00 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-16 09:20 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-17 07:54 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-16 15:51 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-05-16 07:59 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-16 13:39 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-16 01:22 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-16 04:11 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-05-16 15:43 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-16 01:26 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-16 03:42 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-16 13:19 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-16 17:59 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-18 13:20 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-18 14:08 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-05-18 10:07 -1000
Re: gforth too bloated ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-21 21:37 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-05-22 10:06 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-22 10:04 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-05-22 15:39 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-22 13:36 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-20 11:59 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-05-20 07:11 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-20 14:48 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-21 20:27 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2014-05-22 02:23 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-23 14:51 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-23 13:41 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-21 17:41 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-23 14:41 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-21 17:40 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-23 14:16 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-17 21:09 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-15 03:57 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-15 15:50 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-15 10:07 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-16 16:33 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-17 08:04 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-17 19:03 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-18 04:06 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-19 01:38 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-20 13:38 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-20 21:39 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-21 15:49 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-17 20:30 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-17 17:59 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-18 04:08 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-18 11:07 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-18 11:15 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-18 12:11 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-20 12:36 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? m.a.m.hendrix@tue.nl - 2014-05-20 07:17 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2014-05-20 16:26 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-20 09:27 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-20 15:48 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-20 18:35 +0100
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-21 03:45 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-21 14:28 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-21 11:56 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-21 20:54 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-22 14:06 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-22 17:02 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-23 13:05 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-23 19:19 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-22 14:30 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-22 12:09 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-05-21 17:22 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-23 14:03 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-20 16:57 +0100
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-20 21:28 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-05-20 21:56 +0100
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-21 00:21 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-21 21:42 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-22 02:15 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-23 14:47 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-21 14:12 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-21 21:24 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-05-10 12:00 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-05-10 13:16 -0400
Re: gforth too bloated ? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-10 11:05 -0700
Re: gforth too bloated ? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-05-10 18:11 -0500
Re: gforth too bloated ? Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2014-05-11 02:12 +0200
Re: gforth too bloated ? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-05-09 16:36 +0000
Re: gforth too bloated ? jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2014-05-07 20:01 -0700
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-07 13:06 -0700 |
| Subject | gforth too bloated ? |
| Message-ID | <4b4ea6f6-3b09-434a-a501-ff31190b9f4a@googlegroups.com> |
I just read that "gforth is too bloated". That's an honest question : what do you mean by "too bloated" ? i write opensource software, i contribute to oss, i use oss. i'm planning to use gforth. is there something wrong with it ? Thank you PS : I don't mind paying for a software if i feel the price is right for my needs. -- Ker2x
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-07 13:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xd2fpgwjy.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #30165 |
Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> writes: > I just read that "gforth is too bloated". > That's an honest question : what do you mean by "too bloated" ? Gforth has a lot of features compared to typical resident Forths that run on microcontrollers. It also uses somewhat complicated implementation techniques to get good performance (for an interpreter) in a portable way, at the cost of some code expansion. There is an embedded version called Gforth-EC that I haven't tried to use. I don't know its memory footprint but I'm almost sure it's too big for some of the targets like the TI Launchpad (16k flash, 512 bytes ram) that some other Forths on this newsgroup manage to run on. On x86 Linux, I think the full-up loaded image is something like 350k. Of course by Java standards that is almost nothing. > i write opensource software, i contribute to oss, i use oss. > i'm planning to use gforth. is there something wrong with it ? I like it as a user, but since a lot of it is written in C, it misses (it seems to me) some of the technical elegance of a pure metacompiled Forth written in Forth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 00:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lkeb1h$940$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #30166 |
Paul Rubin wrote: >> i write opensource software, i contribute to oss, i use oss. >> i'm planning to use gforth. is there something wrong with it ? > > I like it as a user, but since a lot of it is written in C, it misses > (it seems to me) some of the technical elegance of a pure metacompiled > Forth written in Forth. Gforth consists of three parts: The engine (written in C and vmgen, which is translated into C using a Forth program) gives you almost 400 primitives (a lot, that's because writing primitives in C is easy, so many of them get written as primitive), the kernel, which is meta-compiled Forth, and a lot of tools and library stuff that is written in Forth and compiled on top of the kernel (normal compilation). Our plan is to move away from C, as the maintainers of GCC no longer think that they are providing a portable assembler. However, a future Gforth with its own native code generator will be a featureful system, too, and the compiler will not be too simple. It will compile a lot faster if you type in "make", though. All these desktop systems (Gforth, VFX, SwiftForth, bigForth) have more than 1000 words in the FORTH-WORDLIST. None of these desktop systems have the elegance of a small embedded Forth or figForth - higher performance, more tools, more functions all cost elegance. We have similar feature sets. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-07 23:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xiopgn62p.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #30168 |
Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: > Our plan is to move away from C, as the maintainers of GCC no longer think > that they are providing a portable assembler. Is this still about x+1>x when x is signed? Please give it a break and use an unsigned ;-). > However, a future Gforth with its own native code generator will be a > featureful system, too, and the compiler will not be too simple. I think having a C system interface layer may keep things easier and is fine, but having the compiler in Forth sounds like what a self-respecting full-featured Forth system should do. There could be a threaded interpreter or a bytecode target with a Colorforth-like VM for bootstrapping and for portability to unsupported processors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 04:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0e025702-774f-4ced-a139-3046af242fed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30176 |
Thank you all for your answers. -- Ker2x
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 14:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lkfst5$uo6$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #30176 |
Paul Rubin wrote: > Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes: >> Our plan is to move away from C, as the maintainers of GCC no longer >> think that they are providing a portable assembler. > > Is this still about x+1>x when x is signed? Please give it a break and > use an unsigned ;-). No, that has been fixed with the introduction of -fwrapv. It is about reliability: We need to work around a new bug in almost every new minor GCC release. So far, I haven't seen a new bug introduced with GCC 4.9... >> However, a future Gforth with its own native code generator will be a >> featureful system, too, and the compiler will not be too simple. > > I think having a C system interface layer may keep things easier and is > fine, but having the compiler in Forth sounds like what a > self-respecting full-featured Forth system should do. Yes. > There could be a > threaded interpreter or a bytecode target with a Colorforth-like VM for > bootstrapping and for portability to unsupported processors. Something like that... the image format will probably be the same as now, so you still could use the C-based engine. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014May9.193650@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #30176 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> writes:
>> Our plan is to move away from C, as the maintainers of GCC no longer think
>> that they are providing a portable assembler.
>
>Is this still about x+1>x when x is signed? Please give it a break and
>use an unsigned ;-).
Somebody suggested using unsigned addition in combination with signed
comparison, so I tried this and found that some versions of gcc
miscompile it, too. And -fwrap is not present in all versions of gcc,
either. I worked around this miscompilation by writing code that is
quite a bit bigger, distributed through several files, and produces
bigger and probably slower code, but probably does not incur undefined
behaviour (at least not for this check).
So no, it's not about that miscompilation in particular, it's about
the attitude that it represents.
>I think having a C system interface layer may keep things easier and is
>fine, but having the compiler in Forth sounds like what a
>self-respecting full-featured Forth system should do.
Well, Gforth's compiler has been written in Forth since day 1.
- 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 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dambere@web.de |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 15:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8940ea9b-0094-4a1a-a493-0c7623c0e49a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30168 |
Am Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2014 00:10:56 UTC+2 schrieb Bernd Paysan: > ... > Our plan is to move away from C, as the maintainers of GCC no longer think > that they are providing a portable assembler. > ... What are our possible replacement candidates ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 00:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lkjjeo$nrd$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #30228 |
dambere@web.de wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2014 00:10:56 UTC+2 schrieb Bernd Paysan: >> ... >> Our plan is to move away from C, as the maintainers of GCC no longer >> think that they are providing a portable assembler. >> ... > > What are our possible replacement candidates ? Write a native code compiler in Forth. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 00:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lkjkus$1ct$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #30228 |
On Fri, 9 May 2014 15:01:36 -0700 (PDT) dambere@web.de wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2014 00:10:56 UTC+2 schrieb Bernd Paysan: > > ... > > Our plan is to move away from C, as the maintainers of GCC no > > longer think that they are providing a portable assembler. > > ... > > What are our possible replacement candidates ? Perhaps c--? http://www.cminusminus.org/ " You would be much happier with one portable assembly language that could be generated by a front end and implemented by any of several code generators. Such a language should serve as the interface between high-level compilers and retargetable, optimizing code generators. Authors of front ends and authors of code generators could cooperate easily. C– is that language. " -- Click OK to continue...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 09:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2014May10.111634@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #30231 |
Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> writes:
>On Fri, 9 May 2014 15:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
>dambere@web.de wrote:
>
>> Am Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2014 00:10:56 UTC+2 schrieb Bernd Paysan:
>> > ...
>> > Our plan is to move away from C, as the maintainers of GCC no
>> > longer think that they are providing a portable assembler.
>> > ...
>>=20
>> What are our possible replacement candidates ?
>Perhaps c--?
At least they have the right attitude, but not that many target
platforms.
- 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 2014: http://www.euroforth.org/ef14/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 03:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <536d9ca3$0$2916$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #30228 |
In article <8940ea9b-0094-4a1a-a493-0c7623c0e49a@googlegroups.com>, <dambere@web.de> wrote: >Am Donnerstag, 8. Mai 2014 00:10:56 UTC+2 schrieb Bernd Paysan: >> ... >> Our plan is to move away from C, as the maintainers of GCC no longer think >> that they are providing a portable assembler. >> ... > >What are our possible replacement candidates ? The original idea of gcc was to be written in strict portable c. I bootstrapped a gnu c-compiler on a SUN once, using the SUN's compiler. In 1999 that worked like a charm. Compile gcc with sun c, recompile gcc with gcc. We could try to use a very basic Forth with only CORE and maybe the FILE wordset to bootstrap in a similar way. That would mean we could bootstrap gforth with any half-decent Forth that passes the Hayes test. That doesn't reap the benefit of gcc nowadays: extensive opimization based on intricate knowledge of the processors involved. It would save the portability goal. In the backend an assembler part is indispensable. But an assembler backend in Forth could be really tiny, because it can leave out error detection. Such an assembler (at Pentium II level) can be down to a dozen screens, as testified by the lina library. 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]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 20:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xppjm8fjz.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #30236 |
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) writes: > That would mean we could bootstrap gforth with any half-decent Forth that > passes the Hayes test.... > That doesn't reap the benefit of gcc nowadays: extensive opimization > based on intricate knowledge of the processors involved. It would save the > portability goal. I wonder how many users of Forth on big computers these days really care about the execution speed of the Forth program. Historically one of Forth's advantages in the mini/micro era was that it was faster than competing interpreters like BASIC. It was usually implemented as a straightforward TIL back then: optimizing compilers came later. These days I'd expect an x86 ITC Forth to be faster than (say) Python, but people still use Python all the time. Maybe that's sufficient. I don't know that bootstrapping a Gforth-in-Forth from a more limited Forth is really that useful, since presumably it could cross-compile itself from a PC instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-07 22:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lkeqbu$r6b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30166 |
On 5/7/2014 4:31 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> writes: >> I just read that "gforth is too bloated". >> That's an honest question : what do you mean by "too bloated" ? ...snip... > I like it as a user, but since a lot of it is written in C, it misses > (it seems to me) some of the technical elegance of a pure metacompiled > Forth written in Forth. Who cares what it is written in? How does that impact your experience as a user? I use Win32Forth and much of that is written in assembler, much being a relative term. I mean that I often use see on words and end up seeing machine code rather than something I can easily understand. I think I might prefer seeing C code as I would have less trouble remembering addressing mode syntax. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-07 21:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7xeh049ao6.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #30170 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > Who cares what it is written in? How does that impact your experience > as a user? It doesn't impact my experience as a user in a meaningful way. My experience as an implementation connoisseur is a separate matter: user impact isn't everything. Gforth is also nice from an implementation appreciation standpoint but in more of a big-system kind of way. I think of eForth and cmForth as the quintessential Forths though I haven't really tried to understand cmForth so far. eForth is limited compared to Gforth and slower too, but its implementation is elegant and direct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 04:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Pq2dnZM0d_7sAfHOnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #30170 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/7/2014 4:31 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: >> Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> writes: >>> I just read that "gforth is too bloated". >>> That's an honest question : what do you mean by "too bloated" ? > ...snip... >> I like it as a user, but since a lot of it is written in C, it misses >> (it seems to me) some of the technical elegance of a pure metacompiled >> Forth written in Forth. > > Who cares what it is written in? How does that impact your experience > as a user? Because Forth is mutable; the user can change it without needing the help of a high priest. The user is encouraged to understand how it works, because knowledge is power. Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 13:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lkj42b$4nt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30213 |
On 5/9/2014 5:14 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/7/2014 4:31 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: >>> Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> writes: >>>> I just read that "gforth is too bloated". >>>> That's an honest question : what do you mean by "too bloated" ? >> ...snip... >>> I like it as a user, but since a lot of it is written in C, it misses >>> (it seems to me) some of the technical elegance of a pure metacompiled >>> Forth written in Forth. >> >> Who cares what it is written in? How does that impact your experience >> as a user? > > Because Forth is mutable; the user can change it without needing the > help of a high priest. The user is encouraged to understand how it > works, because knowledge is power. So you can't read C code? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Levy <roger.levy@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 11:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35720a37-415c-4ee0-95fb-1a33fa091e80@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #30219 |
> > Because Forth is mutable; the user can change it without needing the > > help of a high priest. The user is encouraged to understand how it > > works, because knowledge is power. > > So you can't read C code? Try to imagine that we're not all programmers, but carpenters. This is like a carpenter saying to another that he'd like to be able to build a chair without having to plant the seed, grow the tree, cut it down and turn it into lumber. And then somebody sarcastically challenges him by saying "you're saying you don't know how the wood industry works?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 15:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lkj9n5$eu1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #30223 |
On 5/9/2014 2:48 PM, Roger Levy wrote: >>> Because Forth is mutable; the user can change it without needing the >>> help of a high priest. The user is encouraged to understand how it >>> works, because knowledge is power. >> >> So you can't read C code? > > Try to imagine that we're not all programmers, but carpenters. > > This is like a carpenter saying to another that he'd like to be able to build a chair without having to plant the seed, grow the tree, cut it down and turn it into lumber. > > And then somebody sarcastically challenges him by saying "you're saying you don't know how the wood industry works?" I'm afraid your analogy is a bit absurd or at least lost on me. Let's stick with the actual rather than allegory. First, the vast majority of Forth users are just that, USERS and don't really give a rat's rear how it is implemented. I'm one of those. I just care that it works and it is documented... well, I guess the documentation is optional. Of the users who want to lift the hood and see what is inside, then if they don't know the language it is written in well enough to understand, they are out of luck. Writing it is C excludes very, very few curious users and even fewer serious programmers who wish to make mods. If they don't understand C, I expect they will be hard pressed to understand the Forth used to write the kernel. In the end C is not a bad choice at all for writing a Forth compiler. For understandability it is better than assembler - even assembler that can be assembled by a Forth tool. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 09:19 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <u_-dnbGDueCut_DOnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #30219 |
On 5/9/14 7:42 AM, rickman wrote: > On 5/9/2014 5:14 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 5/7/2014 4:31 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: >>>> Laurent Laborde <kerdezixe@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> I just read that "gforth is too bloated". >>>>> That's an honest question : what do you mean by "too bloated" ? >>> ...snip... >>>> I like it as a user, but since a lot of it is written in C, it misses >>>> (it seems to me) some of the technical elegance of a pure metacompiled >>>> Forth written in Forth. >>> >>> Who cares what it is written in? How does that impact your experience >>> as a user? >> >> Because Forth is mutable; the user can change it without needing the >> help of a high priest. The user is encouraged to understand how it >> works, because knowledge is power. > > So you can't read C code? > Maybe all the other folks in this conversation are good at C, but I am not, and I know quite a few excellent Forth programmers without much C experience. 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 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web