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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #60267 > unrolled thread

What is Forth anyway?

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

Contents

  What is Forth anyway? Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 20:31 -0700
    Re: What is Forth anyway? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 23:05 -0700
      Re: What is Forth anyway? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-06-04 03:23 -0700
        Re: What is Forth anyway? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 03:39 -0700
    Re: What is Forth anyway? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-06-04 03:17 -0700
      Re: What is Forth anyway? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-06-04 03:18 -0700
    What is Forth anyway? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 05:17 -0700
      Re: What is Forth anyway? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-06-04 07:13 -0700
      Re: What is Forth anyway? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-06-05 02:38 -0500
    Re: What is Forth anyway? NN <november.nihal@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 05:27 -0700
    Re: What is Forth anyway? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-06-04 23:07 +1000
      Re: What is Forth anyway? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-06-04 19:12 +0100
        Re: What is Forth anyway? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-06-04 12:55 -0700
          Re: What is Forth anyway? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-06-04 21:41 +0100
          Re: What is Forth anyway? "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-06-05 15:54 +1000
            Re: What is Forth anyway? Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-06-05 02:05 -0700
        Re: What is Forth anyway? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 17:33 -0700
          Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-05 12:54 +0000
      Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-04 22:14 +0000
        Re: What is Forth anyway? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-06-04 16:39 -0700
          Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-05 12:44 +0000
            Re: What is Forth anyway? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-06-05 08:10 -0700
              Re: What is Forth anyway? gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 10:01 -0700
              Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-05 19:29 +0000
                Re: What is Forth anyway? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-06-06 03:44 -0500
                  Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-07 19:26 +0000
                    Re: What is Forth anyway? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-06-08 02:06 -0500
                      Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-09 17:09 +0000
              Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-05 19:41 +0000
                Re: What is Forth anyway? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 02:19 -0700
                  Re: What is Forth anyway? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-06-06 10:41 +0100
                    Re: What is Forth anyway? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 12:45 +0300
                      Re: What is Forth anyway? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-06-06 11:23 +0100
                        Re: What is Forth anyway? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 13:30 +0300
                          Re: What is Forth anyway? Alex <alex@rivadpm.com> - 2017-06-06 12:55 +0100
                            Re: What is Forth anyway? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 14:57 +0300
                      Re: What is Forth anyway? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-06-06 13:34 +0000
                        Re: What is Forth anyway? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 17:07 +0300
                        Re: What is Forth anyway? Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 16:51 +0200
                          Re: What is Forth anyway? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-06-06 16:32 +0000
                            Re: What is Forth anyway? Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 01:37 +0200
                      Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-07 19:29 +0000
                        Re: What is Forth anyway? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-06-07 14:56 -0500
                  Re: What is Forth anyway? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-06-06 04:48 -0500
                  Re: What is Forth anyway? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-06-06 10:10 +0000
                  Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-07 19:28 +0000
                    Re: What is Forth anyway? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2017-06-07 14:54 -0500
                    Re: What is Forth anyway? lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 19:42 -0700
                      Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-09 17:12 +0000
        Re: What is Forth anyway? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 17:40 -0700
          Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-05 12:51 +0000
            Re: What is Forth anyway? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 17:19 -0700
              Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-07 19:32 +0000
                Re: What is Forth anyway? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 16:50 -0700
                  Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-09 17:15 +0000
                    Re: What is Forth anyway? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 13:04 -0700
                      Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-09 21:27 +0000
            Re: What is Forth anyway? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-06-06 10:19 +0000
              Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-07 19:38 +0000
                Re: What is Forth anyway? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-06-08 11:52 +0000
                  Re: What is Forth anyway? "Rudy Velthuis" <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> - 2017-06-09 17:23 +0000
    Re: What is Forth anyway? gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 07:16 -0700
    Re: What is Forth anyway? gavino himself <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 07:35 -0700

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#60267 — What is Forth anyway?

Seeing as how I'm in a philosophical mood, I might as well ask the question.

Chuck's innovation was, I think, to see programming as a social convention, not a social contract. Forth was the world's first virtual computer language. Maybe this is why Chuck resisted ANS so much. Elizabeth had bills to pay and cats to herd. ANS made Forth less virtual even in the process of making it more virtual. In the end, though, the metal is real and everything else is made up, ANS or not.

Forth hasn't been a path to riches for any of its users. Whatever wealth they got was earned through hard work. Maybe it's a badge of honor that Forth was never a party to unearned riches. It belongs to a different vibration. I think Forth was an idea ahead of its time. There's still an idea that man is the master of the machine, when it's more of a creative partnership. The machine is the teacher as much as the programmer, so there should be no artificial barriers between the creator and his creation other than the real ones. So, the whole vibe I think that Forth falls into is that of teaching and mastery. It's more of a practice and an art than a means to simply get things done. In other words, it's there to enrich the soul rather than the wallet.

I doubt Forth will ever be done teaching. I find it interesting that Forth is an awful devotion. Great discipline, lousy devotion. But that's a matter of taste, as with all things in love space. Maybe some teaching in that too. Perhaps Chuck exemplified that a bit too much, as if to make a point. Don't take it all so seriously. Forth is forever because it belongs to everyone. 

So is Forth a language or not? For the application writers, yes. Because they made it that. It was good for that, but then it's good for everything because it's a virtual language. It's only real if you say it's real. What if the transistors are your language? This is where Chuck went with this, just to show that computers don't have to be inefficient. Did they listen? Hell, yeah. Did Chuck get rich? No. A vibration ahead of it's time, dude. Forth wasn't a money vibe.

Where to go with Forth? You might as well ask where to go with religion. You don't need one true religion any more than you need one true computer language. I'd say fork the hell out of ANS and make it yours. Screw compatibility. If your dialect can be arrived at (however tortuously) by 2012x, you're golden.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#60268

To me Forth means the joy to create freely. Since there is no intermediate black box between the me and the machine I don't have to read manuals - once I've learned some basic set of words. But also, the lack of intermediate black box means the lost of automatic compatibility. Since I mostly do calculations, however, it isn't too difficult to make portable ANS programs.

I agree with Charles Moore saying: Make applications that you want. In my interpretation: make applications, but not for spekulation. That, is fun and stimulating. If the Forth community set time to make the applikations they wanted, there would soon be a lot of forth apps. 
Made with entusiasm!

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

#60283

On Sunday, 4 June 2017 08:05:01 UTC+2, lehs  wrote:
> To me Forth means the joy to create freely. Since there is no intermediate black box between the me and the machine I don't have to read manuals - once I've learned some basic set of words. But also, the lack of intermediate black box means the lost of automatic compatibility. Since I mostly do calculations, however, it isn't too difficult to make portable ANS programs.
> 
> I agree with Charles Moore saying: Make applications that you want. In my interpretation: make applications, but not for spekulation. That, is fun and stimulating. If the Forth community set time to make the applikations they wanted, there would soon be a lot of forth apps. 
> Made with entusiasm!

Hi lehs,

I also like your post :-)
I like Forth because it doesn't get in the way. The only obstacles are the real ones ( plus the ones that you believe are real, of course).

Cheers,
Howerd

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

#60284

Den söndag 4 juni 2017 kl. 12:23:10 UTC+2 skrev Howerd:
> On Sunday, 4 June 2017 08:05:01 UTC+2, lehs  wrote:
> > To me Forth means the joy to create freely. Since there is no intermediate black box between the me and the machine I don't have to read manuals - once I've learned some basic set of words. But also, the lack of intermediate black box means the lost of automatic compatibility. Since I mostly do calculations, however, it isn't too difficult to make portable ANS programs.
> > 
> > I agree with Charles Moore saying: Make applications that you want. In my interpretation: make applications, but not for spekulation. That, is fun and stimulating. If the Forth community set time to make the applikations they wanted, there would soon be a lot of forth apps. 
> > Made with entusiasm!
> 
> Hi lehs,
> 
> I also like your post :-)
> I like Forth because it doesn't get in the way. The only obstacles are the real ones ( plus the ones that you believe are real, of course).
> 
> Cheers,
> Howerd
Precisely! I have not that much experience of other languages, but I do remember the painful uncertainty before I was able to convince myself that the idea was possible/allowed to realize.

I'm sure that the languages has developed since then, but what I see don't make me attemted to try them. Forth is second to none for me, it's almost like forming clay.

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

#60281

On Sunday, 4 June 2017 05:31:54 UTC+2, Brad Eckert  wrote:
> Seeing as how I'm in a philosophical mood, I might as well ask the question.
> 
> Chuck's innovation was, I think, to see programming as a social convention, not a social contract. Forth was the world's first virtual computer language. Maybe this is why Chuck resisted ANS so much. Elizabeth had bills to pay and cats to herd. ANS made Forth less virtual even in the process of making it more virtual. In the end, though, the metal is real and everything else is made up, ANS or not.
> 
> Forth hasn't been a path to riches for any of its users. Whatever wealth they got was earned through hard work. Maybe it's a badge of honor that Forth was never a party to unearned riches. It belongs to a different vibration. I think Forth was an idea ahead of its time. There's still an idea that man is the master of the machine, when it's more of a creative partnership. The machine is the teacher as much as the programmer, so there should be no artificial barriers between the creator and his creation other than the real ones. So, the whole vibe I think that Forth falls into is that of teaching and mastery. It's more of a practice and an art than a means to simply get things done. In other words, it's there to enrich the soul rather than the wallet.
> 
> I doubt Forth will ever be done teaching. I find it interesting that Forth is an awful devotion. Great discipline, lousy devotion. But that's a matter of taste, as with all things in love space. Maybe some teaching in that too. Perhaps Chuck exemplified that a bit too much, as if to make a point. Don't take it all so seriously. Forth is forever because it belongs to everyone. 
> 
> So is Forth a language or not? For the application writers, yes. Because they made it that. It was good for that, but then it's good for everything because it's a virtual language. It's only real if you say it's real. What if the transistors are your language? This is where Chuck went with this, just to show that computers don't have to be inefficient. Did they listen? Hell, yeah. Did Chuck get rich? No. A vibration ahead of it's time, dude. Forth wasn't a money vibe.
> 
> Where to go with Forth? You might as well ask where to go with religion. You don't need one true religion any more than you need one true computer language. I'd say fork the hell out of ANS and make it yours. Screw compatibility. If your dialect can be arrived at (however tortuously) by 2012x, you're golden.

Hi Brad,

I like your post :-) 
I think Forth is the "Scientific Method" applied to computer programming.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method )
So it will never be done, and is available to anyone who is prepared to think logically and reject hype-drive bias.

Just my 2 Euro-cents worth from a rainy Northern Germany...

Cheers,
Howerd

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

#60282

On Sunday, 4 June 2017 12:17:17 UTC+2, Howerd  wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 June 2017 05:31:54 UTC+2, Brad Eckert  wrote:
> > Seeing as how I'm in a philosophical mood, I might as well ask the question.
> > 
> > Chuck's innovation was, I think, to see programming as a social convention, not a social contract. Forth was the world's first virtual computer language. Maybe this is why Chuck resisted ANS so much. Elizabeth had bills to pay and cats to herd. ANS made Forth less virtual even in the process of making it more virtual. In the end, though, the metal is real and everything else is made up, ANS or not.
> > 
> > Forth hasn't been a path to riches for any of its users. Whatever wealth they got was earned through hard work. Maybe it's a badge of honor that Forth was never a party to unearned riches. It belongs to a different vibration. I think Forth was an idea ahead of its time. There's still an idea that man is the master of the machine, when it's more of a creative partnership. The machine is the teacher as much as the programmer, so there should be no artificial barriers between the creator and his creation other than the real ones. So, the whole vibe I think that Forth falls into is that of teaching and mastery. It's more of a practice and an art than a means to simply get things done. In other words, it's there to enrich the soul rather than the wallet.
> > 
> > I doubt Forth will ever be done teaching. I find it interesting that Forth is an awful devotion. Great discipline, lousy devotion. But that's a matter of taste, as with all things in love space. Maybe some teaching in that too. Perhaps Chuck exemplified that a bit too much, as if to make a point. Don't take it all so seriously. Forth is forever because it belongs to everyone. 
> > 
> > So is Forth a language or not? For the application writers, yes. Because they made it that. It was good for that, but then it's good for everything because it's a virtual language. It's only real if you say it's real. What if the transistors are your language? This is where Chuck went with this, just to show that computers don't have to be inefficient. Did they listen? Hell, yeah. Did Chuck get rich? No. A vibration ahead of it's time, dude. Forth wasn't a money vibe.
> > 
> > Where to go with Forth? You might as well ask where to go with religion. You don't need one true religion any more than you need one true computer language. I'd say fork the hell out of ANS and make it yours. Screw compatibility. If your dialect can be arrived at (however tortuously) by 2012x, you're golden.
> 
> Hi Brad,
> 
> I like your post :-) 
> I think Forth is the "Scientific Method" applied to computer programming.
> ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method )
> So it will never be done, and is available to anyone who is prepared to think logically and reject hype-drive bias.
> 
> Just my 2 Euro-cents worth from a rainy Northern Germany...
> 
> Cheers,
> Howerd

hype-driven bias

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

#60286

Forth is a practical way to create languages and application with uncommon features. It is simple enough to understand and don't force to spend all time to study computer science. So, Forth as a language is just an example of language created by Forth-approach.

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

#60292

On Sunday, 4 June 2017 14:17:53 UTC+2, Ilya Tarasov  wrote:
> Forth is a practical way to create languages and application with uncommon features. It is simple enough to understand and don't force to spend all time to study computer science. So, Forth as a language is just an example of language created by Forth-approach.

Hi Ilya,

> So, Forth as a language is just an example of language created by 
> Forth-approach.
Exactly - so Forth changes all of the time, because of the feedback loop embedded into its definition.

And ANS Forth is the Forth-approach applied to creating a standard suitable for use by big companies.

Cheers,
Howerd

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

#60324

Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> wrote:

> Forth is a practical way to create languages and application with
> uncommon features. It is simple enough to understand and don't force
> to spend all time to study computer science. So, Forth as a language
> is just an example of language created by Forth-approach.

That's exactly right.

Andrew.

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

#60287

On Sunday, 4 June 2017 04:31:54 UTC+1, Brad Eckert  wrote:
> Seeing as how I'm in a philosophical mood, I might as well ask the question.
> 

You could always ask Mr Moore. I recall reading a recent post which claimed he's reachable by email.

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

#60290

Brad Eckert wrote:
> ...
> Where to go with Forth? You might as well ask where to go with religion. You don't need
> one true religion any more than you need one true computer language. I'd say fork the
> hell out of ANS and make it yours. Screw compatibility. If your dialect can be arrived
> at (however tortuously) by 2012x, you're golden.

Chuck might agree:

"Portability is not important. Portability is not possible. Real applications are closely
coupled to hardware. Change the platform and all the code changes. If it didn't, you
wouldn't have changed the platform. To abstract the problem from the hardware
requires massive software like Windows, that's a permanent tax on all applications
to save some one-time programming."

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

#60302

On 6/4/2017 14:07, HAA wrote:
> Brad Eckert wrote:
>> ...
>> Where to go with Forth? You might as well ask where to go with religion. You don't need
>> one true religion any more than you need one true computer language. I'd say fork the
>> hell out of ANS and make it yours. Screw compatibility. If your dialect can be arrived
>> at (however tortuously) by 2012x, you're golden.
> 
> Chuck might agree:
> 
> "Portability is not important. Portability is not possible. Real applications are closely
> coupled to hardware. Change the platform and all the code changes. If it didn't, you
> wouldn't have changed the platform. To abstract the problem from the hardware
> requires massive software like Windows, that's a permanent tax on all applications
> to save some one-time programming."
> 
> 
> 

Chuck identifies something called a "real" application. "Real 
applications are closely coupled to hardware." In other words, "real" 
applications are applications that can't be ported. Well, duh.

There are billions of lines of code out there in unreal apps, and not 
enough real or virtual Chucks to fix them all every time the hardware 
changes.

Portability is incredibly important, and it's achievable. We'd still be 
on 8 bit steam driven chips if Chuck was even half ways right, and we're 
not.

-- 
Alex

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

#60303

On Sunday, 4 June 2017 20:12:39 UTC+2, Alex  wrote:
> On 6/4/2017 14:07, HAA wrote:
> > Brad Eckert wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Where to go with Forth? You might as well ask where to go with religion. You don't need
> >> one true religion any more than you need one true computer language. I'd say fork the
> >> hell out of ANS and make it yours. Screw compatibility. If your dialect can be arrived
> >> at (however tortuously) by 2012x, you're golden.
> > 
> > Chuck might agree:
> > 
> > "Portability is not important. Portability is not possible. Real applications are closely
> > coupled to hardware. Change the platform and all the code changes. If it didn't, you
> > wouldn't have changed the platform. To abstract the problem from the hardware
> > requires massive software like Windows, that's a permanent tax on all applications
> > to save some one-time programming."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Chuck identifies something called a "real" application. "Real 
> applications are closely coupled to hardware." In other words, "real" 
> applications are applications that can't be ported. Well, duh.
> 
> There are billions of lines of code out there in unreal apps, and not 
> enough real or virtual Chucks to fix them all every time the hardware 
> changes.
> 
> Portability is incredibly important, and it's achievable. We'd still be 
> on 8 bit steam driven chips if Chuck was even half ways right, and we're 
> not.
> 
> -- 
> Alex

Hi Alex,

>Portability is incredibly important, and it's achievable.
I agree with that, but its only important if you want to make money.
To put it another way, its too expensive to hire a Chuck level programmer every time you want to update a program for every type of hardware - adding an OS and making the application language portable means that your expensive programmer only has to make the change once and it works on everything, as if by magic.
There are however a costs - complexity, unreliability and the impossibility of verification.

> We'd still be 
> on 8 bit steam driven chips if Chuck was even half ways right
Skipping over the fact that "nearly all" microprocessors are 8 bit ( for some value of "all" ), simplicity of microprocessor architecture and cell width are orthogonal ( for some value of "orthogonal" ) ;-)

Chuck's comment "Portability is not important. Portability is not possible" requires context. Certainly this applies to Chuck developing the GA144 ( more or less on his own ). 
I would say "Portability is incredibly important, and it's achievable, but at some cost".

My current back-burner project is to get to grips with colorForth, and to this end I have already renamed  ?dup  as  qdup  and  or  as  xor . I have even (nearly) got  @  and  !  to operate on byte addresses instead of cell addresses. The prospect of an ANS compatibility layer looms ever closer ;-)
Does ANS Forth allow the standard word names to be redefined?
e.g.  [']  is particularly difficult as the colorForth character set does not include  [ ' or ]. Maybe I go to UTF-8 ....

Cheers,
Howerd

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

#60304

On 6/4/2017 20:55, Howerd wrote:
> On Sunday, 4 June 2017 20:12:39 UTC+2, Alex  wrote:
>> On 6/4/2017 14:07, HAA wrote:
>>> Brad Eckert wrote:
>>>> ... Where to go with Forth? You might as well ask where to go
>>>> with religion. You don't need one true religion any more than
>>>> you need one true computer language. I'd say fork the hell out
>>>> of ANS and make it yours. Screw compatibility. If your dialect
>>>> can be arrived at (however tortuously) by 2012x, you're
>>>> golden.
>>> 
>>> Chuck might agree:
>>> 
>>> "Portability is not important. Portability is not possible. Real
>>> applications are closely coupled to hardware. Change the platform
>>> and all the code changes. If it didn't, you wouldn't have changed
>>> the platform. To abstract the problem from the hardware requires
>>> massive software like Windows, that's a permanent tax on all
>>> applications to save some one-time programming."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Chuck identifies something called a "real" application. "Real 
>> applications are closely coupled to hardware." In other words,
>> "real" applications are applications that can't be ported. Well,
>> duh.
>> 
>> There are billions of lines of code out there in unreal apps, and
>> not enough real or virtual Chucks to fix them all every time the
>> hardware changes.
>> 
>> Portability is incredibly important, and it's achievable. We'd
>> still be on 8 bit steam driven chips if Chuck was even half ways
>> right, and we're not.
>> 
>> -- Alex
> 
> Hi Alex,
> 
>> Portability is incredibly important, and it's achievable.
> I agree with that, but its only important if you want to make money. 

The open source model gifts software for free, but allows money to be 
made off services & maintenance. There is a commercial pressure to 
produce software at almost zero cost. It doesn't do much for the 
quality, but it does make portability an attractive characteristic to 
reduce costs and increase the coverage.

> To put it another way, its too expensive to hire a Chuck level
> programmer every time you want to update a program for every type of
> hardware - adding an OS and making the application language portable
> means that your expensive programmer only has to make the change once
> and it works on everything, as if by magic. There are however a costs
> - complexity, unreliability and the impossibility of verification.

If OSes didn't exist, someone would invent them simply to gain the 
advantage of write once, run anywhere (the Java mantra).

> 
>> We'd still be on 8 bit steam driven chips if Chuck was even half
>> ways right
> Skipping over the fact that "nearly all" microprocessors are 8 bit (
> for some value of "all" ), simplicity of microprocessor architecture
> and cell width are orthogonal ( for some value of "orthogonal" ) ;-)

Perhaps my hyperbole is matched by Chuck's. But to limit Forth to such 
an environment seems to be a waste.

> 
> Chuck's comment "Portability is not important. Portability is not
> possible" requires context. Certainly this applies to Chuck
> developing the GA144 ( more or less on his own ). I would say
> "Portability is incredibly important, and it's achievable, but at
> some cost".

You can replace the word "simplicity" for "portability", and it still 
makes sense. Cost is everywhere.

> 
> My current back-burner project is to get to grips with colorForth,
> and to this end I have already renamed  ?dup  as  qdup  and  or  as
> xor . I have even (nearly) got  @  and  !  to operate on byte
> addresses instead of cell addresses. The prospect of an ANS
> compatibility layer looms ever closer ;-) Does ANS Forth allow the
> standard word names to be redefined? e.g.  [']  is particularly

Yes.

> difficult as the colorForth character set does not include  [ ' or ].
> Maybe I go to UTF-8 ....

That's the cost of simplicity ;)

-- 
Alex

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

#60319

Howerd wrote:
> > On 6/4/2017 14:07, HAA wrote:
> > > Brad Eckert wrote:
> > >> ...
> > >> Where to go with Forth? You might as well ask where to go with religion. You don't
> > >> need one true religion any more than you need one true computer language. I'd say
> > >> fork the hell out of ANS and make it yours. Screw compatibility. If your dialect
> > >> can be arrived at (however tortuously) by 2012x, you're golden.
> > >
> > > Chuck might agree:
> > >
> > > "Portability is not important. Portability is not possible. Real applications are
> > > closely coupled to hardware. Change the platform and all the code changes. If it
> > > didn't, you wouldn't have changed the platform. To abstract the problem from the
> > > hardware
> > > requires massive software like Windows, that's a permanent tax on all applications
> > > to save some one-time programming."
> ...
> Chuck's comment "Portability is not important. Portability is not possible" requires
> context. Certainly this applies to Chuck developing the GA144 ( more or less on his own
> ).
> I would say "Portability is incredibly important, and it's achievable, but at some
> cost".

The context was stated - 'change the platform and all the code changes'.
Is there any doubt OS, languages, programs are massive and unwieldly,
all because they need layers of abstraction to cover the fact the underlying
hardware may be different.  In Forth's case it is worse because it's
impossible to enforce a standard.  You don't even get the large crappy
programs that C or Fortran produce.  What you get is years of haggling
over standards that nobody can win.

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

#60328

On Monday, 5 June 2017 07:53:47 UTC+2, HAA  wrote:
> Howerd wrote:
> > > On 6/4/2017 14:07, HAA wrote:
> > > > Brad Eckert wrote:
> > > >> ...
> > > >> Where to go with Forth? You might as well ask where to go with religion. You don't
> > > >> need one true religion any more than you need one true computer language. I'd say
> > > >> fork the hell out of ANS and make it yours. Screw compatibility. If your dialect
> > > >> can be arrived at (however tortuously) by 2012x, you're golden.
> > > >
> > > > Chuck might agree:
> > > >
> > > > "Portability is not important. Portability is not possible. Real applications are
> > > > closely coupled to hardware. Change the platform and all the code changes. If it
> > > > didn't, you wouldn't have changed the platform. To abstract the problem from the
> > > > hardware
> > > > requires massive software like Windows, that's a permanent tax on all applications
> > > > to save some one-time programming."
> > ...
> > Chuck's comment "Portability is not important. Portability is not possible" requires
> > context. Certainly this applies to Chuck developing the GA144 ( more or less on his own
> > ).
> > I would say "Portability is incredibly important, and it's achievable, but at some
> > cost".
> 
> The context was stated - 'change the platform and all the code changes'.
> Is there any doubt OS, languages, programs are massive and unwieldly,
> all because they need layers of abstraction to cover the fact the underlying
> hardware may be different.  In Forth's case it is worse because it's
> impossible to enforce a standard.  You don't even get the large crappy
> programs that C or Fortran produce.  What you get is years of haggling
> over standards that nobody can win.

Hi HAA,

> The context was stated - 'change the platform and all the code changes'. 
If you you have a context in which 'change the platform and all the code changes' then clearly whatever you write is not portable to some other hardware, so portability is not possible.
The context I was referring to is what makes portability *important*.
i.e. what exactly is important to you?
For Microsoft portability across different hardware is very important, for Chuck not, and I have some mix of the two extremes.

There is also 'programmer portability' - I changed the colorForth name that was  or  to  xor  because that is what the  1's complement  or  function is called on a 2's complement machine. I changed  ?dup  to  qdup  because in colorForth it has nothing to do with the ANS Forth word  ?dup  .
I'm just being nice to myself, or anyone else reading my program, one year from now.

> In Forth's case it is worse because it's impossible to enforce a standard.
I think I get what you are saying - because Forth is extensible you can not pin it down with a standard.
As soon as you have defined your first colon word you have left the safe haven of the standard - the programmer reading your code and the computer must both trust that you know what you are doing.

To get back to my original point, for some people what is important is maximising sales of their product, and this requires both types of portability - to mask the details of the hardware with an OS, and to have a standard language that masks the ( lack of ) abilities of the available pool of programmers.

The big, profitable organisations have the latter, we have Forth :-)

Cheers,
Howerd

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

#60313

воскресенье, 4 июня 2017 г., 21:12:39 UTC+3 пользователь Alex написал:
> On 6/4/2017 14:07, HAA wrote:
> > Brad Eckert wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Where to go with Forth? You might as well ask where to go with religion. You don't need
> >> one true religion any more than you need one true computer language. I'd say fork the
> >> hell out of ANS and make it yours. Screw compatibility. If your dialect can be arrived
> >> at (however tortuously) by 2012x, you're golden.
> > 
> > Chuck might agree:
> > 
> > "Portability is not important. Portability is not possible. Real applications are closely
> > coupled to hardware. Change the platform and all the code changes. If it didn't, you
> > wouldn't have changed the platform. To abstract the problem from the hardware
> > requires massive software like Windows, that's a permanent tax on all applications
> > to save some one-time programming."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Chuck identifies something called a "real" application. "Real 
> applications are closely coupled to hardware." In other words, "real" 
> applications are applications that can't be ported. Well, duh.
> 
> There are billions of lines of code out there in unreal apps, and not 
> enough real or virtual Chucks to fix them all every time the hardware 
> changes.
> 
> Portability is incredibly important, and it's achievable. We'd still be 
> on 8 bit steam driven chips if Chuck was even half ways right, and we're 
> not.
> 

Portability is a feature, but not "incredibly important". Would anyone abandon Forth, if portability is not 100%? I'm not sure. Having a knowledge how to write my own compiler, I feel no duty to implement all features exactly as determined previously by someone. If someone can write a compiler, others should help him, not discourage by pointing to many documents he still don't conform.

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

#60339

Ilya Tarasov wrote:

> Portability is a feature, but not "incredibly important". Would
> anyone abandon Forth, if portability is not 100%?

I guess that 100% portability is almost impossible, unless you really
want to jump through hoops. But a high level of portability makes
sense, IMO.

-- 
Rudy Velthuis        http://www.rvelthuis.de

Allen's (or Cann's) Axiom: When all else fails, read the 
instructions.

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

#60305

HAA wrote:

> Brad Eckert wrote:
> > ...
> > Where to go with Forth? You might as well ask where to go with
> > religion. You don't need one true religion any more than you need
> > one true computer language. I'd say fork the hell out of ANS and
> > make it yours. Screw compatibility. If your dialect can be arrived
> > at (however tortuously) by 2012x, you're golden.
> 
> Chuck might agree:
> 
> "Portability is not important. Portability is not possible. Real
> applications are closely coupled to hardware. Change the platform and
> all the code changes. If it didn't, you wouldn't have changed the
> platform. To abstract the problem from the hardware requires massive
> software like Windows, that's a permanent tax on all applications to
> save some one-time programming."

Yeah, just rewrite everything (and re-invent the wheel) all the time.

Pfft!

-- 
Rudy Velthuis        http://www.rvelthuis.de

"A witty saying proves nothing."
 -- Voltaire (1694-1778)

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

#60310

On Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 3:14:31 PM UTC-7, Rudy Velthuis wrote:
> HAA wrote:
> 
> > Brad Eckert wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Where to go with Forth? You might as well ask where to go with
> > > religion. You don't need one true religion any more than you need
> > > one true computer language. I'd say fork the hell out of ANS and
> > > make it yours. Screw compatibility. If your dialect can be arrived
> > > at (however tortuously) by 2012x, you're golden.
> > 
> > Chuck might agree:
> > 
> > "Portability is not important. Portability is not possible. Real
> > applications are closely coupled to hardware. Change the platform and
> > all the code changes. If it didn't, you wouldn't have changed the
> > platform. To abstract the problem from the hardware requires massive
> > software like Windows, that's a permanent tax on all applications to
> > save some one-time programming."
> 
> Yeah, just rewrite everything (and re-invent the wheel) all the time.
> 
> Pfft!

For a long time, I thought of Forth as being an over-grown macro-assembler. Most macro-assemblers have a rather prickly macro language, but Forth is much easier and much more powerful. Also, the data-stack provides a convenient way to pass parameters in and out of functions --- much better than using registers, and then having to save and restore them to the return-stack --- you have the same number of memory accesses, but much cleaner code, although you do have to dedicate a register to the data-stack-pointer.

Even today, I would rather implement a Forth and write a program in Forth with a heavy reliance on CODE words, than write an entire program in traditional macro-assembly language. Even if I do use a traditional macro-assembler, I would still have the convention of a Forth data-stack for passing parameters because this cleans up the code a lot.

But this doesn't mean that Forth should be limited to only doing this low-level programming. On a desktop computer it is worthwhile to have a standard so programs can be portable --- we don't have a meaningful standard now (ANS-Forth is just a sales gimmick from Forth Inc., and it doesn't support portability of programs) --- a meaningful standard is what the Straight Forth design is intended to be.

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web