Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #56541 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-01 12:10 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-04-08 01:37 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 202 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 12:10 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-01 17:06 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 16:37 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 19:21 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 17:16 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 01:26 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 12:51 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 18:50 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 19:18 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 21:29 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 22:01 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-02 21:46 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 21:54 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-02 22:26 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 08:34 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-01 18:47 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 01:28 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 04:02 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 12:39 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-02 15:44 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 20:56 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 01:16 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 21:38 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 16:42 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-08 12:41 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 17:31 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 22:03 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 01:39 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-01 22:56 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 12:32 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 12:45 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-02 22:03 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same wordsas "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2017-04-13 20:31 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same wordsas "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2017-04-13 20:35 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same wordsas "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2017-04-13 20:37 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same wordsas "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 19:11 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 12:58 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-02 22:06 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-03 10:49 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 01:21 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Jan Coombs <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com> - 2017-04-02 13:58 +0100
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 11:16 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 19:38 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-02 22:10 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-02 22:02 +0200
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-02 15:31 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 23:48 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 23:49 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 10:23 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-03 15:56 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-03 20:57 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-03 08:08 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-02 19:22 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 22:46 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 20:38 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 07:07 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 00:17 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 07:41 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-07 20:23 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 00:15 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 21:45 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-04-04 02:08 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 03:45 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-04-04 06:25 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-07 20:19 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 17:33 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-08 18:45 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 19:03 +0000
Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 08:23 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? joel.rees@gmail.com - 2017-04-06 03:02 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 15:46 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-07 18:59 +0200
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 20:57 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 20:37 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 01:31 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 21:45 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-07 20:32 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 01:31 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? mhx@iae.nl - 2017-04-08 03:01 -0700
Starting Forth (was: Is there a free version ...) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-08 12:34 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 15:53 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-09 09:36 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-07 20:30 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 17:51 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 01:22 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 23:01 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-08 23:23 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 17:11 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-09 18:18 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 23:05 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 03:11 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-09 12:24 +0200
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-09 14:16 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-09 13:50 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-10 06:19 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-10 11:20 +0200
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 18:49 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 19:42 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-11 15:26 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 10:24 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 20:42 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 11:28 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-04-09 07:32 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-08 14:30 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 16:53 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-09 14:44 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-09 08:19 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 00:26 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-09 21:39 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 07:47 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-09 21:51 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 09:18 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-10 11:41 +0200
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-10 07:57 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 12:27 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-10 15:57 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-04-11 13:24 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-12 01:32 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 23:37 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 16:59 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-10 17:49 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:32 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 12:09 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-11 12:18 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 15:54 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 01:47 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 12:39 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 02:33 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? mhx@iae.nl - 2017-04-11 04:12 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:14 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:02 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:24 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:09 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 21:37 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 15:59 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? john <anon@example.com> - 2017-04-12 17:12 +0100
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 14:19 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:54 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-11 21:12 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 07:19 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 00:27 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 07:32 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 12:49 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-11 21:37 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 07:53 +0300
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:25 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:27 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 12:52 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 12:53 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 03:51 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 00:22 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-13 15:59 +0100
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 13:07 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 03:58 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 02:54 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 18:29 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-04-09 07:23 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 08:04 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2017-04-09 23:23 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:00 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-10 09:21 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 10:49 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-10 10:26 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 03:10 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same wordsas "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Robert L." <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org> - 2017-04-13 20:55 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-07 12:41 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 20:48 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 14:03 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-07 21:21 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2017-04-08 03:28 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Julian Fondren <julian.fondren@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 02:39 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 12:45 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 00:26 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 14:38 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 01:20 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-07 16:17 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-04-08 12:49 +0100
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 01:01 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 10:06 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-09 19:37 +0200
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 16:09 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 17:26 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? minforth@arcor.de - 2017-04-09 22:32 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-09 22:44 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Darin Murphy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 18:47 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-10 12:31 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2017-04-10 10:18 -1000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-04-10 16:14 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 18:11 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-11 03:21 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 11:02 -0700
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-12 04:42 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 13:51 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-04-08 14:04 +0000
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-04-08 09:10 +0200
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-04-08 12:50 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 21:31 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? David Schultz <abuse@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-07 20:50 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-07 22:04 -0400
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? David Schultz <abuse@127.0.0.1> - 2017-04-07 21:22 -0500
Re: Is there a free version of Forth that uses the exact same words as "Starting Forth" on Forth Inc.'s site? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 01:37 -0400
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 12:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Starting Forth (was: Is there a free version ...) |
| Message-ID | <2017Apr8.143416@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #56857 |
mhx@iae.nl writes:
>My 2003 transcription (home.iae.nl/users/mhx/sf.html)
>was illegal, or at least unsanctioned.
>I found it unacceptable that this refreshingly
>unconventional textbook, which had instantly converted
>me to a Forth addict when I was still at university,
>would become unavailable to next generations.
I applaud your effort and courage in bringing back this book, and
Forth, Inc.'s wisdom to pick it up rather than crushing the effort.
[My own introduction was different: I first bought and read Alan
Winfield's "The Complete Forth", which did not inspire me, and then
Ronald Zech's "Die Programmiersprache Forth", which, despite being
horribly organized, inspired me by explaining the internals in
addition to the more application-oriented stuff. I did not read
"Starting Forth" until much later.]
>"In this transcript Forth code has been ANSified.
> The samples should run on, at least, iForth and
> SwiftForth. Where necessary, statements that were
> valid in 1981 have been exchanged with statements
> more appropriate for 2003 (when this tribute was written)."
Maybe you could exchange the few places where the code is specific to
iForth/SwiftForth with standard code. None of the things Darin Murphy
mentioned seems to be essential.
Also, it might help if it was clearer what is input and what is
output. Maybe it is just my browser settings that make it hard to see
the difference, but Darin Murphy apparently does not see the
difference, either.
>"In this transcript I have assumed a 32-bit,
> byte-addressing Forth, with 8-bit characters.
> The address returned by WORD is assumed to be HERE.
> This allows the common trick of ALLOTing length of
> str CHARS after using WORD in order to compile
> string str to memory. Multitasking issues are
> ignored (e.g. no >TYPE, just TYPE). Division is
> symmetric, not floored, and two's complement is
> assumed throughout. Most Forths should not have
> problems with this. Chapter 7 exploits extended
> uses of number conversion. Some Forths are broken
> in this respect, but iForth and SwiftForth do support
> these neat features."
Unfortunately, neither iForth nor SwiftForth run on the Raspberry Pi.
Concerning the other things:
32-bit: 32-bit iForth is no longer available. Forth is good at
cell-size independence, why not make use of that? Yes, ok, it's cool
if you can show concrete results, and they actually agree with those
on the used system, but then you can do without knowing what HERE
produces on the used system ...
Byte-addressed with 8-bit characters: Yes, few people even use
cell-addressed machines, and close to 0 start learning Forth on such a
machine.
WORD: That property of WORD is pretty widespread, so it is probably
ok. However, given PARSE (1994) and PARSE-NAME (2012), one might
exchange the WORD usage in a 2017 update.
Division: Switching / MOD etc. from symmetric to floored in Gforth has
resulted in few, if any complaints, so it seems to me that people
don't use these words in a way where that difference makes a
difference. So I don't think it's appropriate to put examples in
Starting Forth where it makes a difference. If you want to have
examples where it makes a difference, why not use SM/REM (or FM/MOD)?
Input number conversion: If these features are so neat, why has nobody
proposed to standardize them? Looking into the future, if we get
recognizers accepted, then we can show the neatness of Forth by adding
these features to a standard Forth as recognizers (just like the book
shows how to output numbers in such formats by writing appropriate
Forth code. If we don't get them accepted, nor proposals for
SwiftForth-compatible input number conversion, then the feature is
apparently not neat enough.
In any case, there is the issue of the output number conversion that
produces $200.00, and the Forth-2012 input number conversion
interprets it as double-cell hex number, which is not what was
intended; you may want to do something about that.
>It is great that no contributor here remembers
>anymore that in pre-ANS times it was *impossible* to
>take a snippet of published Forth and run it on one's
>own system.
I remember very well that I took the code from [belinfante87], typed
it into my fig-Forth-based system, and ran it there. I may have had
to adjust a few things, but far less than on my own code once it has
been mhx-ed.
@Article{belinfante87,
author = "Johan G.F. Belinfante",
title = "S/K/ID: Combinators in Forth",
journal = jfar,
year = "1987",
volume = "4",
number = "4",
pages = "555--580"
}
>CFA, LFA, ', ['], signed division, 2+ for
>addressing, 1-based PICK, segmented 16-bit Forth,
>floating-point, blocks, non-standard words with
>standard names (OR, NOT) ...
What about signed division? 2+ for addressing was universal as long
as 16-bit systems on byte-addressed machines were standard (i.e.,
before Forth-94). 1-based PICK, and NOT worked nicely until Forth-83
broke compatibility. OR is only a problem with
machineForth/colorForth.
>Then about that OCTAL thing in Chapter 8:
>
>"Your Forth system already has a number of
> variables defined; one is called BASE. BASE
> contains the number base that you're currently
> working in. In fact, the definition of HEX and
> DECIMAL (and OCTAL, if your system has it) are simply
>: DECIMAL 10 BASE ! ;
>: HEX 16 BASE ! ;
>: OCTAL 8 BASE ! ;
>
>What is there to be confused about? Doesn't gForth
>have BASE ?
Chapter 7 first mentions OCTAL "(available on some systems)", and only
later gives the definition of OCTAL. Also, earlier you mentioned that
you make some assumptions to avoid always to have to write "ifs". Why
not make the assumption that OCTAL is not available and define it just
like you define BINARY; or don't mention it at all?
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 15:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1I7GA.806087$F83.514960@fx38.am4> |
| In reply to | #56857 |
mhx@iae.nl wrote: > It seems that 99% of the problems discussed > in this thread can be solved by properly reading > a section in the on-line version's Acknowledgements. > I'll reproduce and annotate it here: Wow, thanks for coming on here and clarifying the reason "Starting Forth" is not compatible anymore with modern forth! I am very grateful that you took the time to explain things so well. I've been to your website and even downloaded the glgames folder to study it after I become more efficient with Forth and Assembly. I am also impressd that you spent so much time back in 2002-2003 transcribing and adjusting SF to bring it up to, at the time, compatibility. If more people in the Forth world had your respect for that tome and the drive, than it would have never have gotten to such incompatibility. As it stands it is only a reminder of the glory of what was and a glimmer of what could be. Anyway for the most part SF has worked with Gforth, so I'm still using it till I complete the book which should be in the next week or two. > > Then about that OCTAL thing in Chapter 8: > > "Your Forth system already has a number of > variables defined; one is called BASE. BASE > contains the number base that you're currently > working in. In fact, the definition of HEX and > DECIMAL (and OCTAL, if your system has it) are simply > : DECIMAL 10 BASE ! ; > : HEX 16 BASE ! ; > : OCTAL 8 BASE ! ; > > What is there to be confused about? Doesn't gForth > have BASE ? > > -marcel Yes, that part was my error. When I brought up this post, I some how remembered incorrectly about OCTAL, but the other things I mentioned were accuracte. It doesn't matter anyway. I've been able to successfully move up to Chapter 8 and was able to complete the exercises for the most part. Besides there really isn't anything I can do at this point since Forth, Inc., is no longer supporting SF, which they should remove from their site since it's no longer relavent save for a few experienced Forthers to look back over from time to time and remember how it helped them become Forth programmers. Again Marcel, thank you for all of the work you have done to try and bring SF into the Twenty First Century and the awesome website too! Take care now, Darin Murphy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-09 09:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Apr9.113653@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #56868 |
Darin Murpy <murphy.darin@gmail.com> writes:
>I am also impressd that
>you spent so much time back in 2002-2003 transcribing and adjusting SF
>to bring it up to, at the time, compatibility.
It was not much more compatible in 2003. Many systems did not have
Octal nor SwiftForth-compatible input number conversion then, either.
> Besides there really isn't anything I can do at this
>point since Forth, Inc., is no longer supporting SF, which they should
>remove from their site since it's no longer relavent save for a few
>experienced Forthers to look back over from time to time and remember
>how it helped them become Forth programmers.
I don't think that Elizabeth Rather's opinion about Starting Forth is
shared by Forth, Inc., or they would not have adopted the online
version. And given that the updated Starting Forth is
SwiftForth-compatible (at least it was tested with SwiftForth), there
is no reason for them not to have it.
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-07 20:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87o9w7a85j.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #56827 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > I don't know what this means, so I will have to come back to this > later. Certainly I could download a newer version. I didn't realize I > had never installed gforth on this machine. Typically you'd use a package installer which deals with all that path stuff for you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 17:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4403f2de-29ba-44dd-acaf-639949d0e3c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56827 |
On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 9:37:57 AM UTC+9, rickman wrote: > On 4/7/2017 4:57 PM, Darin Murpy wrote: > > Albert van der Horst wrote: > > > >> Well, no. Marcel Hendrix has done that boring work all right. > >> He claims the new Starting Forth works on some Forth's because > >> he *actually tested it there*. Because his work and those Forth's are > >> based on the 94' standard, it is far from accidental that gForth > >> is a good match. The authors of gForth go to great lengths > >> to supply a standard compliant Forth too. > >> > >> Now writing a Forth that works 100% with the original Starting Forth > >> is a waste of time, but everybody does as he pleases, of course. > >> > >> And I agree with the point you're responding to. You want to pamper > >> the readers of the original Starting Forth like a mother that sees > >> to it that no bacteria comes neir their child. The first time the > >> child goes outside the house a bug kills him. Counterproductive. > >> > >> <SNIP> > >> > >>> Thanks again for your suggestions and advice! Take care now, > >>> > >>> Darin Murphy > >>> > > > > Thank you Albert for explaining your view in regards to having a 100% > > "Starting Forth" complaint Forth built for educational purposes. I would > > n't say I want to pamper or sterialize anyone from harnish of reality. I > > only understand from my own experiences that learning usually faster > > and easier if the documentation (i.e., tutorials, books, classes, > > etc.,) are both accurate and entertaining. Also after reviewing dozens > > of book reviews about "Starting Forth" from professionals in the field, > > students and hobbiest, I am not alone in this. Thanks again for taking > > the time to explain your own understandings. > > I agree with you 100%. When learning a new topic of any sort, errors in > the instructional material is often a fairly large pothole in the road. > No only do you have to recognize it as a pothole rather than bad driving > steering the car up onto the curb, you then have to go back to see what > could have been done to avoid hitting the pothole and eventually find a > way to drive around it. > > I thought I'd try running the code you are talking about and found a > problem before I even got going. On installation, the readme file says, > "To start the system, just say `gforth'". Well, I have said 'gforth' > until I'm blue in the face and it doesn't run. I tried typing it into a > command window and get "'gforth' is not recognized as an internal or > external command, operable program or batch file." I guess I have to > add the gforth installation directory to the command path... > > Ok, did that and now it complains, "gforth: cannot open image file > gforth.fi in path > .:/usr/local/lib/gforth/site-forth:/usr/local/share/gforth/site-forth:/usr/local/lib/gforth/0.7.0-20081226:/usr/local/share/gforth/0.7.0-20081226 > for reading" > > I don't know what this means, so I will have to come back to this later. > Certainly I could download a newer version. I didn't realize I had > never installed gforth on this machine. > > I will need to come back to this when I have more time... :( It sounds like you are trying to install from source without using the provided configuration and build scripts. What OS are you on? If Debian or Ubuntu, Darin's example of using apt-get will put the binaries and site-forth where they should go, that gforth is in your executable path. I don't remember what package manager Fedora is using now, but, again, if you install the package, you're set to go. Likewise, most other common OSses, and Cygwin for MSWindows. I recommend using Cygwin instead of installing direct to MSWindows, but others may have other opinions. Any way about it, installing from source is not what I'd recommend until you have used it enough to know what is where and why, and can set the configuration up meaningfully. -- Joel Rees http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/p/novels-i-am-writing.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-09 01:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <occg9e$7qh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56882 |
On 4/8/2017 8:51 PM, Joel Rees wrote: > On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 9:37:57 AM UTC+9, rickman wrote: >> On 4/7/2017 4:57 PM, Darin Murpy wrote: >>> Albert van der Horst wrote: >>> >>>> Well, no. Marcel Hendrix has done that boring work all right. >>>> He claims the new Starting Forth works on some Forth's because >>>> he *actually tested it there*. Because his work and those >>>> Forth's are based on the 94' standard, it is far from >>>> accidental that gForth is a good match. The authors of gForth >>>> go to great lengths to supply a standard compliant Forth too. >>>> >>>> Now writing a Forth that works 100% with the original Starting >>>> Forth is a waste of time, but everybody does as he pleases, of >>>> course. >>>> >>>> And I agree with the point you're responding to. You want to >>>> pamper the readers of the original Starting Forth like a mother >>>> that sees to it that no bacteria comes neir their child. The >>>> first time the child goes outside the house a bug kills him. >>>> Counterproductive. >>>> >>>> <SNIP> >>>> >>>>> Thanks again for your suggestions and advice! Take care now, >>>>> >>>>> Darin Murphy >>>>> >>> >>> Thank you Albert for explaining your view in regards to having a >>> 100% "Starting Forth" complaint Forth built for educational >>> purposes. I would n't say I want to pamper or sterialize anyone >>> from harnish of reality. I only understand from my own >>> experiences that learning usually faster and easier if the >>> documentation (i.e., tutorials, books, classes, etc.,) are both >>> accurate and entertaining. Also after reviewing dozens of book >>> reviews about "Starting Forth" from professionals in the field, >>> students and hobbiest, I am not alone in this. Thanks again for >>> taking the time to explain your own understandings. >> >> I agree with you 100%. When learning a new topic of any sort, >> errors in the instructional material is often a fairly large >> pothole in the road. No only do you have to recognize it as a >> pothole rather than bad driving steering the car up onto the curb, >> you then have to go back to see what could have been done to avoid >> hitting the pothole and eventually find a way to drive around it. >> >> I thought I'd try running the code you are talking about and found >> a problem before I even got going. On installation, the readme >> file says, "To start the system, just say `gforth'". Well, I have >> said 'gforth' until I'm blue in the face and it doesn't run. I >> tried typing it into a command window and get "'gforth' is not >> recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or >> batch file." I guess I have to add the gforth installation >> directory to the command path... >> >> Ok, did that and now it complains, "gforth: cannot open image file >> gforth.fi in path >> .:/usr/local/lib/gforth/site-forth:/usr/local/share/gforth/site-forth:/usr/local/lib/gforth/0.7.0-20081226:/usr/local/share/gforth/0.7.0-20081226 >> for reading" >> >> I don't know what this means, so I will have to come back to this >> later. Certainly I could download a newer version. I didn't >> realize I had never installed gforth on this machine. >> >> I will need to come back to this when I have more time... :( > > It sounds like you are trying to install from source without using > the provided configuration and build scripts. > > What OS are you on? Windows 8 and I'm using a provided .exe file. One of my other posts I report the file I used was the same name, but smaller in size than the file someone recommended. I will try the larger file when I get a chance. > If Debian or Ubuntu, Darin's example of using apt-get will put the > binaries and site-forth where they should go, that gforth is in your > executable path. > > I don't remember what package manager Fedora is using now, but, > again, if you install the package, you're set to go. Likewise, most > other common OSses, and Cygwin for MSWindows. I recommend using > Cygwin instead of installing direct to MSWindows, but others may have > other opinions. > > Any way about it, installing from source is not what I'd recommend > until you have used it enough to know what is where and why, and can > set the configuration up meaningfully. I would never dream of installing from source on a Windows machine. Far too many variables. I'd only do that on a Linux machine if I had to make no decisions and it was fully automatic. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 23:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e93440d-5020-4f4c-bdc6-8666e2b1f975@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56896 |
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 2:22:47 PM UTC+9, rickman wrote: > On 4/8/2017 8:51 PM, Joel Rees wrote: > > On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 9:37:57 AM UTC+9, rickman wrote: > >> On 4/7/2017 4:57 PM, Darin Murpy wrote: > >>> Albert van der Horst wrote: > >>> > >>>> [...] Hope I'm not clipping too much. > >> I thought I'd try running the code you are talking about and found > >> a problem before I even got going. On installation, the readme > >> file says, "To start the system, just say `gforth'". Well, I have > >> said 'gforth' until I'm blue in the face and it doesn't run. I > >> tried typing it into a command window and get "'gforth' is not > >> recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or > >> batch file." I guess I have to add the gforth installation > >> directory to the command path... > >> > >> Ok, did that and now it complains, "gforth: cannot open image file > >> gforth.fi in path > >> .:/usr/local/lib/gforth/site-forth:/usr/local/share/gforth/site-forth:/usr/local/lib/gforth/0.7.0-20081226:/usr/local/share/gforth/0.7.0-20081226 > >> for reading" > >> > >> I don't know what this means, so I will have to come back to this > >> later. Certainly I could download a newer version. I didn't > >> realize I had never installed gforth on this machine. > >> > >> I will need to come back to this when I have more time... :( > > > > It sounds like you are trying to install from source without using > > the provided configuration and build scripts. > > > > What OS are you on? > > Windows 8 and I'm using a provided .exe file. One of my other posts I > report the file I used was the same name, but smaller in size than the > file someone recommended. I will try the larger file when I get a chance. Okay, you'll need to dig back through the readmes and set the paths yourself. Or, ... > > If Debian or Ubuntu, Darin's example of using apt-get will put the > > binaries and site-forth where they should go, that gforth is in your > > executable path. > > > > I don't remember what package manager Fedora is using now, but, > > again, if you install the package, you're set to go. Likewise, most > > other common OSses, and Cygwin for MSWindows. I recommend using > > Cygwin instead of installing direct to MSWindows, but others may have > > other opinions. I highly recommend Cygwin for you. Cygwin has gforth and a lot of other useful stuff as packages, so you don't have to mess with source and you don't have to mess with paths. (And I like bc, too, which is available in Cygwin. Makes a very nice arbitrary precision calculator.) > > Any way about it, installing from source is not what I'd recommend > > until you have used it enough to know what is where and why, and can > > set the configuration up meaningfully. > > I would never dream of installing from source on a Windows machine. Far > too many variables. I'd only do that on a Linux machine if I had to > make no decisions and it was fully automatic. Oh, but it's so fun watching the configuration, test, compile, test, etc., scroll by on the screen for hours! >:-9 (gforth probably won't take more than an hour on any recent hardware. Perl takes quite a long time. But that's not relevant. :) > -- > > Rick C -- Joel Rees http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/p/novels-i-am-writing.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-08 23:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <874lxy9k01.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #56898 |
Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> writes: > (gforth probably won't take more than an hour on any recent > hardware. Perl takes quite a long time. But that's not relevant. :) Don't know about Perl, but building gforth just took about 8 seconds on a current midrange x86 server. Building gcc 6 took about 1/2 hour. Otoh, building gforth on a small cheap VPS got a test failure after about 3 minutes. I'll check into it some other time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-09 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <136196af-e3fd-469d-9774-56ceda85c020@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56899 |
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 3:24:02 PM UTC+9, Paul Rubin wrote: > Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> writes: > > (gforth probably won't take more than an hour on any recent > > hardware. Perl takes quite a long time. But that's not relevant. :) > > Don't know about Perl, but building gforth just took about 8 seconds > on a current midrange x86 server. Building gcc 6 took about 1/2 hour. > > Otoh, building gforth on a small cheap VPS got a test failure after > about 3 minutes. I'll check into it some other time. Well, 3 minutes or 3 seconds, both are less than an hour. The last time I successfully built gforth under openbsd on a 32 bit AMD processor in the sub GHz speed range, it took about a half an hour, IIRC. I believe we are talking about a user with a Pi, which I am guessing is in the range of the machine I was thinking of. (Speaking of building gforth under current openbsd, I should start a thread and ask questions, but first I would need to get a current install of openbsd running. Last I checked there were some issues that prevented a 0.7.0 plus version from building.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-09 18:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87bms583gx.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #56952 |
Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> writes: > The last time I successfully built gforth under openbsd on a 32 bit > AMD processor in the sub GHz speed range, it took about a half an > hour, IIRC. I just tried on a Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N2800 @ 1.86GHz, one of the slower cpus still running now, and ./BUILD-FROM-SCRATCH took about 8 minutes, of which quite a lot surprisingly was in makeinfo. This was 64 bit Debian 8 Linux with GCC 4.9 building Gforth 0.7.3 from Anton's site. So I guess I could believe 1/2 hour for an older 32 bit AMD processor, ok. Also tried on a 1.3 ghz Marvell ARMv7 processor (Scaleway C1 server), a 32 bit cpu that's probably a bit faster than a Raspberry Pi 2, running Debian 7. It also took about 8 minutes on one core, hmm. So that might be 15 minutes on an older RPi or on my Beaglebone Black if I ever get that running. Running "make" on the ARM after touching a couple of the .c files took just 7.5 seconds. After touching engine/forth.h (so more .c files had to be recompiled) it took about 1m40s. I this is still pretty tolerable. The ./BUILD-FROM-SCRATCH script in particular does quite a lot with TeX formatting and stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-09 23:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <beeccf4e-93e2-447e-a2e5-d66e5dd11932@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56961 |
On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 10:18:40 AM UTC+9, Paul Rubin wrote: > Joel Rees writes: > > The last time I successfully built gforth under openbsd on a 32 bit > > AMD processor in the sub GHz speed range, it took about a half an > > hour, IIRC. > > I just tried on a Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N2800 @ 1.86GHz, one of the > slower cpus still running now, and ./BUILD-FROM-SCRATCH took about 8 > minutes, of which quite a lot surprisingly was in makeinfo. This was 64 > bit Debian 8 Linux with GCC 4.9 building Gforth 0.7.3 from Anton's site. > So I guess I could believe 1/2 hour for an older 32 bit AMD processor, > ok. > > Also tried on a 1.3 ghz Marvell ARMv7 processor (Scaleway C1 server), a > 32 bit cpu that's probably a bit faster than a Raspberry Pi 2, running > Debian 7. It also took about 8 minutes on one core, hmm. So that might > be 15 minutes on an older RPi or on my Beaglebone Black if I ever get > that running. Running "make" on the ARM after touching a couple of the > .c files took just 7.5 seconds. After touching engine/forth.h (so more > .c files had to be recompiled) it took about 1m40s. > > I this is still pretty tolerable. The ./BUILD-FROM-SCRATCH script in > particular does quite a lot with TeX formatting and stuff. Good to know, and definitely tolerable. (I should have been more clear that I think anything under an hour is tolerable for building a language and its tools.) Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-09 03:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <occmlk$mek$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56898 |
On 4/9/2017 2:01 AM, Joel Rees wrote: > On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 2:22:47 PM UTC+9, rickman wrote: >> On 4/8/2017 8:51 PM, Joel Rees wrote: >>> On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 9:37:57 AM UTC+9, rickman wrote: >>>> On 4/7/2017 4:57 PM, Darin Murpy wrote: >>>>> Albert van der Horst wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> [...] > > Hope I'm not clipping too much. > >>>> I thought I'd try running the code you are talking about and found >>>> a problem before I even got going. On installation, the readme >>>> file says, "To start the system, just say `gforth'". Well, I have >>>> said 'gforth' until I'm blue in the face and it doesn't run. I >>>> tried typing it into a command window and get "'gforth' is not >>>> recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or >>>> batch file." I guess I have to add the gforth installation >>>> directory to the command path... >>>> >>>> Ok, did that and now it complains, "gforth: cannot open image file >>>> gforth.fi in path >>>> .:/usr/local/lib/gforth/site-forth:/usr/local/share/gforth/site-forth:/usr/local/lib/gforth/0.7.0-20081226:/usr/local/share/gforth/0.7.0-20081226 >>>> for reading" >>>> >>>> I don't know what this means, so I will have to come back to this >>>> later. Certainly I could download a newer version. I didn't >>>> realize I had never installed gforth on this machine. >>>> >>>> I will need to come back to this when I have more time... :( >>> >>> It sounds like you are trying to install from source without using >>> the provided configuration and build scripts. >>> >>> What OS are you on? >> >> Windows 8 and I'm using a provided .exe file. One of my other posts I >> report the file I used was the same name, but smaller in size than the >> file someone recommended. I will try the larger file when I get a chance. > > Okay, you'll need to dig back through the readmes and set the paths yourself. > > Or, ... > >>> If Debian or Ubuntu, Darin's example of using apt-get will put the >>> binaries and site-forth where they should go, that gforth is in your >>> executable path. >>> >>> I don't remember what package manager Fedora is using now, but, >>> again, if you install the package, you're set to go. Likewise, most >>> other common OSses, and Cygwin for MSWindows. I recommend using >>> Cygwin instead of installing direct to MSWindows, but others may have >>> other opinions. > > I highly recommend Cygwin for you. Cygwin has gforth and a lot of other useful stuff as packages, so you don't have to mess with source and you don't have to mess with paths. > > (And I like bc, too, which is available in Cygwin. Makes a very nice arbitrary precision calculator.) > >>> Any way about it, installing from source is not what I'd recommend >>> until you have used it enough to know what is where and why, and can >>> set the configuration up meaningfully. >> >> I would never dream of installing from source on a Windows machine. Far >> too many variables. I'd only do that on a Linux machine if I had to >> make no decisions and it was fully automatic. > > Oh, but it's so fun watching the configuration, test, compile, test, etc., scroll by on the screen for hours! >:-9 > > (gforth probably won't take more than an hour on any recent hardware. Perl takes quite a long time. But that's not relevant. :) An initial compile of Win32Forth takes maybe three minutes under Windows. Why would a compile of gForth take so much longer? Is it nearly all written in assembly or C or something? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-09 12:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ocd24a$fcl$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #56900 |
In article <occmlk$mek$1@dont-email.me>, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/9/2017 2:01 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 2:22:47 PM UTC+9, rickman wrote:
>>> On 4/8/2017 8:51 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 9:37:57 AM UTC+9, rickman wrote:
>>>>> On 4/7/2017 4:57 PM, Darin Murpy wrote:
>>>>>> Albert van der Horst wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>
>> Hope I'm not clipping too much.
>>
>>>>> I thought I'd try running the code you are talking about and found
>>>>> a problem before I even got going. On installation, the readme
>>>>> file says, "To start the system, just say `gforth'". Well, I have
>>>>> said 'gforth' until I'm blue in the face and it doesn't run. I
>>>>> tried typing it into a command window and get "'gforth' is not
>>>>> recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or
>>>>> batch file." I guess I have to add the gforth installation
>>>>> directory to the command path...
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, did that and now it complains, "gforth: cannot open image file
>>>>> gforth.fi in path
>>>>> .:/usr/local/lib/gforth/site-forth:/usr/local/share/gforth/site-forth:/usr/local/lib/gforth/0.7.0-20081226:/usr/local/share/gforth/0.7.0-20081226
>>>>> for reading"
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know what this means, so I will have to come back to this
>>>>> later. Certainly I could download a newer version. I didn't
>>>>> realize I had never installed gforth on this machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will need to come back to this when I have more time... :(
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like you are trying to install from source without using
>>>> the provided configuration and build scripts.
>>>>
>>>> What OS are you on?
>>>
>>> Windows 8 and I'm using a provided .exe file. One of my other posts I
>>> report the file I used was the same name, but smaller in size than the
>>> file someone recommended. I will try the larger file when I get a chance.
>>
>> Okay, you'll need to dig back through the readmes and set the paths yourself.
>>
>> Or, ...
>>
>>>> If Debian or Ubuntu, Darin's example of using apt-get will put the
>>>> binaries and site-forth where they should go, that gforth is in your
>>>> executable path.
>>>>
>>>> I don't remember what package manager Fedora is using now, but,
>>>> again, if you install the package, you're set to go. Likewise, most
>>>> other common OSses, and Cygwin for MSWindows. I recommend using
>>>> Cygwin instead of installing direct to MSWindows, but others may have
>>>> other opinions.
>>
>> I highly recommend Cygwin for you. Cygwin has gforth and a lot of other useful stuff as packages, so you don't have to mess with source and you don't have to mess with paths.
>>
>> (And I like bc, too, which is available in Cygwin. Makes a very nice arbitrary precision calculator.)
>>
>>>> Any way about it, installing from source is not what I'd recommend
>>>> until you have used it enough to know what is where and why, and can
>>>> set the configuration up meaningfully.
>>>
>>> I would never dream of installing from source on a Windows machine. Far
>>> too many variables. I'd only do that on a Linux machine if I had to
>>> make no decisions and it was fully automatic.
>>
>> Oh, but it's so fun watching the configuration, test, compile, test, etc., scroll by on the screen for hours! >:-9
>>
>> (gforth probably won't take more than an hour on any recent hardware. Perl takes quite a long time. But that's not relevant. :)
>
>An initial compile of Win32Forth takes maybe three minutes under
>Windows. Why would a compile of gForth take so much longer? Is it
>nearly all written in assembly or C or something?
Let's see ...
~/PROJECT/ciforth$ time (make -B lina64 )
echo 'define({M4_VERSION},{'`date +%Y%b%d`'})' >VERSION
cat VERSION lina64.cfg fasm.m4 ci86.gnr | m4 -G ciforth.m4 - >/tmp/ciforthscratch
sed /tmp/ciforthscratch -e '/Split here for doc/,$d' \
>ci86.lina64.fas
sed /tmp/ciforthscratch -e '1,/Split here for doc/d' | \
sed -e '/Split here for test/,$d' >ci86.lina64.rawdoc
sed /tmp/ciforthscratch -e '1,/Split here for test/d' >ci86.lina64.rawtest
rm /tmp/ciforthscratch
fasm ci86.lina64.fas -m256000; mv ci86.lina64 lina64
flat assembler version 1.70.02 (256000 kilobytes memory)
2 passes, 55792 bytes.
real 0m0.123s
user 0m0.080s
sys 0m0.012s
Being written all in assembler can't be the reason.
To be fair, generating the lina64-specific docs (html info pdf and ps)
takes 3.5 seconds.
OTOH, if a user would make a small change in the assembler
source instead of using the generic system, (e.g. to make FM/MOD
an assembler definition, or to make it appear he is the author )
rebuild lina64 takes 8 mS.
>--
>
>Rick C
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 | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-09 14:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Apr9.161649@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #56900 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
>An initial compile of Win32Forth takes maybe three minutes under
>Windows. Why would a compile of gForth take so much longer?
Does it?
On a 4GHz Core i5-6600k, without parallel make (i.e., pretty much
using only one core):
time ./BUILD-FROM-SCRATCH
...
real 0m55.657s
user 0m47.832s
sys 0m1.880s
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-09 13:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87vaqd8fwn.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #56929 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
> On a 4GHz Core i5-6600k, without parallel make (i.e., pretty much
> using only one core):
>
> time ./BUILD-FROM-SCRATCH
> ...
> real 0m55.657s
> user 0m47.832s
> sys 0m1.880s
Hmm, is ./BUILD-FROM-SCRATCH the right way to build gforth? I had been
using "./configure; ./make" and getting successful builds some of the
time, errors at others.
I just tried ./BUILD-FROM-SCRATCH and got:
make: *** No rule to make target 'doc/gforth.ds', needed by 'doc/gforth.texi'.
Stop.
after about 20 seconds. This is from the Gforth 0.7.2 in the Debian 8
source repository.
(Added) With the 0.7.3 tarball from your TU-Wien site and after
installing texlive, ./BUILD-FROM-SCRATCH took about 36 sec on both an
i7-3770 and 40 sec on an E3-1230v3, both of which should be a little
slower on 1 core than your i5-6600K. I wonder why it builds faster on
the slower machines. I'm using GCC 6 if that might be te difference
Also, does parallel make mess anything up?
Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-10 06:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Apr10.081959@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #56946 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes:
>> On a 4GHz Core i5-6600k, without parallel make (i.e., pretty much
>> using only one core):
>>
>> time ./BUILD-FROM-SCRATCH
>> ...
>> real 0m55.657s
>> user 0m47.832s
>> sys 0m1.880s
>
>Hmm, is ./BUILD-FROM-SCRATCH the right way to build gforth? I had been
>using "./configure; ./make" and getting successful builds some of the
>time, errors at others.
./configure && make
is the right way to build from a tarball.
./BUILD-FROM-SCRATCH
(after having a Gforth installed) is the right way to build from git.
Using it for the tarball works, too, but increases the prerequisites.
>I just tried ./BUILD-FROM-SCRATCH and got:
>
> make: *** No rule to make target 'doc/gforth.ds', needed by 'doc/gforth.texi'.
> Stop.
>
>after about 20 seconds. This is from the Gforth 0.7.2 in the Debian 8
>source repository.
Debian cripples Gforth by removing the documentation, and also by
disabling optimizations. If you want to build from a Debian source
package, use their build process. I would recommend going with our
sources.
>(Added) With the 0.7.3 tarball from your TU-Wien site and after
>installing texlive, ./BUILD-FROM-SCRATCH took about 36 sec on both an
>i7-3770 and 40 sec on an E3-1230v3, both of which should be a little
>slower on 1 core than your i5-6600K. I wonder why it builds faster on
>the slower machines. I'm using GCC 6 if that might be te difference
0.7.3 takes 45s real time (41s CPU time; this is on a system with SSD
and sufficient RAM; what is it doing in the 4s time difference?
System time is <1s). The compiler (gcc-4.9 for me) might make a
difference; or maybe makeinfo, which causes quite noticable pauses on
my box.
>Also, does parallel make mess anything up?
For 0.7, probably. For the development version, it's should work (28s
real time, 55s user time in the i5-6600k), but if you encounter any
problems, try non-parallel make (and if you can create a somewhat
reproducable bug, please report it).
- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
EuroForth 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-10 11:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ocfioc$jm2$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #56981 |
In article <2017Apr10.081959@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>, Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote: <SNIP> >Debian cripples Gforth by removing the documentation, and also by >disabling optimizations. If you want to build from a Debian source >package, use their build process. I would recommend going with our >sources. I know Debian leaves out some info files from especially GNU software. However that comes about because those doc's are not sufficiently free i.e. they don't comply with the Debian requirements. (You can't make a derived work then adapt the documentation or some such.) I personally think they should then be at least available from non-free, because that was created for such situations, but it isn't. I only applaud to have less nasal demons resulting from no optimisation, but I think the .info is indispensable. Because it is a license issue, Gforth authors could change the license and we would enjoy an easy installation with full docs. Maybe a warning to not use that version for speed benchmarks. > >- anton 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 | 2017-04-10 18:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87y3v767ct.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #56981 |
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes: > ./configure && make > is the right way to build from a tarball. Aha, ok. I hit some errors doing this with the Debian source package but will try with your tarball. > 0.7.3 takes 45s real time (41s CPU time; this is on a system with SSD > and sufficient RAM; what is it doing in the 4s time difference? The compiler is the only difference I can think of. Your machine is a little faster than mine, and mine doesn't have an SSD. > For 0.7, probably. For the development version, it's should work (28s > real time, 55s user time in the i5-6600k), but if you encounter any > problems, try non-parallel make (and if you can create a somewhat > reproducable bug, please report it). Cool, thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-10 19:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87pogjpsuk.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #57030 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
> The compiler is the only difference I can think of. Your machine is a
> little faster than mine, and mine doesn't have an SSD.
Ok, I built the current version from git and ran this benchmark:
: bm ( n -- ) 0 swap 0 do i + loop ;
: fcputime ( - f f ) cputime d>f d>f fswap ;
: tbm ( -- ) fcputime { F: user F: sys }
1e9 f>s bm
fcputime sys f- fswap user f-
f. f. drop cr ;
tbm
bye
Results (Intel i7-3770, Debian 7):
Git head, gcc 6.1.0:
$ ./gforth-fast /tmp/bench.fs
2076130. 0.
$ ./gforth /tmp/bench.fs
2436152. 0.
$ ./gforth-itc /tmp/bench.fs
3556222. 0.
Gforth 0.7.0 included with debian 7:
$ gforth-fast ./bench.fs
2312145. 0.
$
gforth ./bench.fs
3236202. 0.
$
gforth-itc ./bench.fs
3664229. 0.
So there's significant speedup between versions. No idea whether Gforth
differences, gcc differences, or Debian pessimizations are responsible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-11 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2017Apr11.172618@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> |
| In reply to | #57034 |
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>> The compiler is the only difference I can think of. Your machine is a
>> little faster than mine, and mine doesn't have an SSD.
>
>Ok, I built the current version from git and ran this benchmark:
>
> : bm ( n -- ) 0 swap 0 do i + loop ;
> : fcputime ( - f f ) cputime d>f d>f fswap ;
> : tbm ( -- ) fcputime { F: user F: sys }
> 1e9 f>s bm
> fcputime sys f- fswap user f-
> f. f. drop cr ;
>
> tbm
> bye
>
>Results (Intel i7-3770, Debian 7):
>
>Git head, gcc 6.1.0:
>
> $ ./gforth-fast /tmp/bench.fs
> 2076130. 0.
>
> $ ./gforth /tmp/bench.fs
> 2436152. 0.
>
> $ ./gforth-itc /tmp/bench.fs
> 3556222. 0.
>
>
>Gforth 0.7.0 included with debian 7:
>
> $ gforth-fast ./bench.fs
> 2312145. 0.
> $
> gforth ./bench.fs
> 3236202. 0.
> $
> gforth-itc ./bench.fs
> 3664229. 0.
>
>So there's significant speedup between versions. No idea whether Gforth
>differences, gcc differences, or Debian pessimizations are responsible.
gforth-fast and gforth have an optimization "dynamic
superinstructions" that is disabled by default by Debian, and Gforth
itself disables it when things don't look right (e.g., if a new gcc
version arranges code in a way that it cannot cope with). This
optimization typically produces more speedup, mainly from better
branch prediction, and to a lesser amount from fewer instructions.
But your benchmark is so simple that this optimization does not buy
that much (see below).
You can see if dynamic superinstructions are active by running the
engine with --debug: If you get a long list of primitives plus data,
it's enabled. You can enable it with --dynamic and disable it with
--no-dynamic.
Anyway, here are results for your benchmark for gforth-fast on a 4GHz
Core i5-6600K:
Debian 8 git version git version
(--no-dynamic) --no-dynamic (--dynamic)
output 2248000. 2252000. 2032000.
branches 4007755838 4010455077 2011028818
branch-misses 125216 189564 211151
instructions 24037903122 24053980033 18057981132
cycles 9020812023 9027195269 8157766601
So the dynamic superinstructions make the difference, in this case
only through the instruction count (and dependencies, but these are
not visible here).
Gforth includes some small, but slightly bigger benchmarks: Try
gforth-fast onebench.fs
gforth-fast /usr/share/gforth/0.7.0/onebench.fs
You can find results to compare with in
<http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gforth.git/tree/Benchres>. Here are
the results (times in seconds) I see on the 4GHz i5-6600K:
sieve bubble matrix fib
0.100 0.140 0.068 0.148 Debian 8 (--no-dynamic)
0.100 0.132 0.068 0.124 git version --no-dynamic
0.080 0.104 0.044 0.072 git version (--dynamic)
- 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 2016: http://www.euroforth.org/ef16/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web