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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #42204 > unrolled thread

New to the group

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

Contents

  New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-26 15:17 -0700
    Re: New to the group mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-09-26 17:35 -0700
    Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-26 21:16 -0700
      Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 07:27 -0700
        Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 14:43 -0400
          Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 13:05 -0700
          Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-27 12:57 -1000
          Re: New to the group Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-27 17:00 -0700
            Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-27 17:16 -0700
              Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 20:31 -0400
              Re: New to the group jfong@ms4.hinet.net - 2015-09-27 18:57 -0700
                Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-27 19:37 -0700
                  Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 20:53 -0700
                    Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-27 19:02 -1000
                      Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-27 23:33 -0700
                        Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 04:51 -0700
                          Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 12:39 -0400
                    Re: New to the group Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-09-28 14:29 +0200
                      Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 07:18 -0700
                        Re: New to the group foxaudioresearch@gmail.com - 2015-09-28 08:07 -0700
                        Re: New to the group Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-09-28 17:23 +0200
                          Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 11:16 -0700
                            Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 14:25 -0400
                              Re: New to the group anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-09-29 09:05 +0000
                            Re: New to the group Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-09-28 20:31 +0200
                              Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 13:20 -0700
                                Re: New to the group Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2015-09-28 22:52 +0200
                                  Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 16:40 -0700
                        Re: New to the group Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 08:41 -0700
                        Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-28 11:41 -1000
                          Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-28 21:33 -0700
                      Re: New to the group jfong@ms4.hinet.net - 2015-09-28 19:13 -0700
                        Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 00:51 -0400
                          Re: New to the group jfong@ms4.hinet.net - 2015-09-29 18:26 -0700
                            Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 21:55 -0400
                            Re: New to the group Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-09-30 08:29 +0100
                          Re: New to the group jfong@ms4.hinet.net - 2015-09-29 18:52 -0700
                      Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-29 00:29 -0700
                        Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 04:40 -0700
                          Re: New to the group Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 05:24 -0700
                          Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 07:33 -0700
                            Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-29 14:11 -0700
                      Re: New to the group "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-29 16:46 +0000
                        Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-29 14:15 -0700
                          Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 17:34 -0400
                      Re: New to the group "WJ" <w_a_x_man@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-30 00:07 +0000
      Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 10:54 -0700
    Re: New to the group Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-09-26 22:37 -0700
      Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-27 10:51 -0700
    Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 17:15 -0700
      Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 21:58 -0400
        Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 22:03 -0700
          Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-29 21:32 -1000
            Re: New to the group Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-09-30 09:06 +0100
              Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-30 08:58 -1000
                Re: New to the group Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 23:55 -0700
                  Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-30 21:28 -1000
                  Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 08:25 -0400
                  Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-01 09:33 -0700
              Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-30 16:21 -0700
                Re: New to the group "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-30 21:03 -0400
                  Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-09-30 19:34 -1000
                    Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-30 23:47 -0700
                      Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 08:31 -0400
                        Re: New to the group "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-02 00:30 -0400
                          Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-01 19:22 -1000
                            Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-01 23:52 -0700
                          Re: New to the group Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 01:52 -0700
                            Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-02 08:36 -1000
                            Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 17:00 -0400
                              Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 14:46 -0700
                                Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 18:10 -0400
                                Re: New to the group Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-02 16:08 -0700
                                  Re: New to the group "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-02 20:44 -0400
                                    Re: New to the group David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-10-31 06:54 -0400
                                      Re: New to the group "Rod Pemberton" <too@zxcvfeqad.cdm> - 2015-11-02 02:34 -0500
                                        Re: New to the group David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-12-22 06:45 -0500
                                      Re: New to the group "Rod Pemberton" <too@zxcvfeqad.cdm> - 2015-11-02 02:34 -0500
                                  Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-02 15:16 -1000
                                    Re: New to the group Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-02 18:21 -0700
                                      Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-02 15:38 -1000
                                    Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 22:13 -0400
                                      Re: New to the group Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-10-03 22:24 +0100
                                        Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:33 -0400
            Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-09-30 17:00 -0700
              Re: New to the group "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-30 20:38 -0400
              Re: New to the group Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-10-02 14:37 -0400
                Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 17:01 -0400
                Re: New to the group hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2015-10-02 23:35 -0700
          Re: New to the group "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-09-30 18:11 -0400
            Re: New to the group Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-10-01 02:13 +0200
      Re: New to the group Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-09-30 08:38 +0100
        Re: New to the group Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-09-30 10:58 -0400
    Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 06:04 -0700
      Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-01 09:46 -0400
      Re: New to the group anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 06:07 +0000
        Re: New to the group Alfred Singlestone <vitonis@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 04:04 -0700
          Re: New to the group rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 10:29 -0400
          Re: New to the group anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-09 15:30 +0000
    Re: New to the group lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 00:19 -0700
      Re: New to the group visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-10-03 17:01 -0700
      Re: New to the group anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 06:38 +0000
        Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-07 21:15 -1000
          Minimal wordset (was: New to the group) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-08 13:39 +0000
            Re: Minimal wordset (was: New to the group) JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-08 08:13 -0700
              Re: Minimal wordset (was: New to the group) Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 00:55 -0700
                Re: Minimal wordset Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-10-09 10:43 +0200
                  Re: Minimal wordset Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 06:56 -0700
                    Re: Minimal wordset Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-10-09 19:44 +0200
                      Re: Minimal wordset Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-09 14:02 -0700
                        Re: Minimal wordset Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-10-10 09:44 +0100
                        Re: Minimal wordset anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-10 11:36 +0000
                  Re: Minimal wordset lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 08:40 -0700
                    Re: Minimal wordset Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-10-09 19:53 +0200
                      Re: Minimal wordset lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 11:22 -0700
                        Re: Minimal wordset JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-09 11:33 -0700
                        Re: Minimal wordset Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> - 2015-10-09 20:38 +0200
                        Re: Minimal wordset stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-10-09 20:56 +0000
                          Re: Minimal wordset rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 20:10 -0500
                            Re: Minimal wordset Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-11-02 03:05 +0100
                            Re: Minimal wordset "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-11-01 16:08 -1000
                            Re: Minimal wordset stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-02 09:35 +0000
                              Re: Minimal wordset anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 12:42 +0000
                                Re: Minimal wordset humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2015-11-08 23:22 -0800
                              Re: Minimal wordset rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 11:25 -0500
                                Re: Minimal wordset stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-03 19:36 +0000
                              Re: Minimal wordset "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-11-08 12:56 +1100
                                Re: Minimal wordset stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2015-11-08 16:14 +0000
                                  Re: Minimal wordset "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2015-11-09 11:55 +1100
                            Re: Minimal wordset anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-02 09:41 +0000
                              Re: Minimal wordset rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 11:29 -0500
                                Re: Minimal wordset anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-11-03 17:01 +0000
                  Re: Minimal wordset JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2015-10-09 11:27 -0700
              Re: Minimal wordset (was: New to the group) "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-10-09 23:11 -0400
                Re: Minimal wordset (was: New to the group) Jan Coombs <Jan-54 <jenfhaomndgfwutc@murmic.plus.com>> - 2015-10-10 08:38 +0100
        Re: New to the group dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2015-10-14 23:14 +0000
          Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-14 16:21 -1000
          Re: New to the group anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-10-15 08:46 +0000
    Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 09:23 -0700
      Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-03 09:19 -1000
    Re: New to the group lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 05:24 -0700
      Re: New to the group "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-10-08 08:22 -1000
        Re: New to the group lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 08:37 -0700
    Re: New to the group Chris Curl <ccurl609@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 10:44 -0700

Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

#42347

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 3:19:36 AM UTC-4, lehs wrote:
> Den söndag 27 september 2015 kl. 00:18:01 UTC+2 skrev Chris Curl:
...
> My hope is that Forth will crystallize into a future operating system, stored in some kind of memory device to which you can attach things like computers, screens and modems...

I am using Forth since 1984 and to quote you, since then I have never been seriously interested in any other computer language. Forth programming is real fun.

I started with RSC-Forth which is a derivative of FIG-FORTH and I am working now with Win32Forth which is ANS Forth standard compatible. 

I am glad I never had problem with different standards, I only had to change the usage of <BUILD DOES>. 

But I am wondering ...
Forth is extensible. So each new standard should have a package of words which may be loaded to make it compatible with the previous standard, to let old Forth programs be compiled and run without problems even with a new standard.

Win32Forth has a folder 'COMPAT' with some compatibility files.

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

#42447

lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> writes:
>For example the idea that a forth st=
>andard should be a minimal kernel without structures and all the other thin=
>gs that easily can be added in each system. Then there might be a standard =
>that doesn't change from year to year.

1979 1983 1994 2012

The standard updates are not that frequent.  Structures were only
added in the 2012 standard, but it does not seem that we are going to
update the standard every year now. Indeed there was a suggestion that
we should do more frequent updates at the standards meeting last year,
but there were strong voices against this.

Concerning the idea of a minimal system and that all users then add
their own structures and other things that can be added easily: That's
an idea that comes up regularly (e.g., at this year's EuroForth), and
there have been at least two occasions when people wanted to start a
standard based on that idea.  So it is certainly an attractive idea.

But apparently not attractive enough to actually lead to any concrete
outcome.  This year we at least got a list of words that were to be in
the minimal set in the opinion of its author, and we played around
with it (defined a number of them in terms of an even smaller set).

I think one problem here is that there are different concepts of
minimalism, and this includes the effort of this year's EuroForth: It
was intended to be a small set of words for education purposes, but
there was also the idea of implementation minimalism (don't provide
what you can easily define from the other provided words) in it.

Myself, I really don't want to define structures in every program, and
I don't want to read through other people's structures definitions
(and note the differences between them) every time I look at a
program, and I also much prefer if people use field names instead of,
e.g., CELL+ or nothing, which they often do if no structures are
present.

- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/

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

#42448

On 10/7/15 8:38 PM, Anton Ertl wrote:
> lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> writes:
>> For example the idea that a forth st=
>> andard should be a minimal kernel without structures and all the other thin=
>> gs that easily can be added in each system. Then there might be a standard =
>> that doesn't change from year to year.
>
> 1979 1983 1994 2012
>
> The standard updates are not that frequent.  Structures were only
> added in the 2012 standard, but it does not seem that we are going to
> update the standard every year now. Indeed there was a suggestion that
> we should do more frequent updates at the standards meeting last year,
> but there were strong voices against this.
>
> Concerning the idea of a minimal system and that all users then add
> their own structures and other things that can be added easily: That's
> an idea that comes up regularly (e.g., at this year's EuroForth), and
> there have been at least two occasions when people wanted to start a
> standard based on that idea.  So it is certainly an attractive idea.

"A minimal kernel without structures and all the other things that 
easily can be added in each system" is roughly what Forth94 (ANS Forth) 
constructed with its CORE wordset (whose words do not, actually, have to 
be in a precompiled kernel, but must be available somehow in the system, 
if only in paper documentation) and optional "Extension" wordsets.

As Anton correctly notes, standards have changed relatively 
infrequently, and only with much publication for discussion of possible 
changes.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

-- 
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather   (US & Canada)   800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc.                         +1 310.999.6784
5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90045
http://www.forth.com

"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================

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

#42456 — Minimal wordset (was: New to the group)

"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
>On 10/7/15 8:38 PM, Anton Ertl wrote:
>> lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> writes:
>>> For example the idea that a forth st=
>>> andard should be a minimal kernel without structures and all the other thin=
>>> gs that easily can be added in each system. Then there might be a standard =
>>> that doesn't change from year to year.
...
>> Concerning the idea of a minimal system and that all users then add
>> their own structures and other things that can be added easily: That's
>> an idea that comes up regularly (e.g., at this year's EuroForth), and
>> there have been at least two occasions when people wanted to start a
>> standard based on that idea.  So it is certainly an attractive idea.
>
>"A minimal kernel without structures and all the other things that 
>easily can be added in each system" is roughly what Forth94 (ANS Forth) 
>constructed with its CORE wordset (whose words do not, actually, have to 
>be in a precompiled kernel, but must be available somehow in the system, 
>if only in paper documentation) and optional "Extension" wordsets.

If you mean that the Core wordset is the minimal one and that the
extension wordsets are the things that can be added easily, that's not
true:

There are words from the extension wordsets that cannot be defined
based on core words, e.g., words from the file wordset.

Moreover, the Core wordset is not perceived as minimal; e.g., at this
year's EuroForth Peter Knaggs started out by saying that the number of
words in Core is too large (130 words), and he produced a somewhat
smaller list (I think, 80-90 words), and Ulrich Hoffmann then defined
about half of that list through other words from that list.  And at an
earlier occasion someone asked why a specific word was in core, when
it could have been defined through other CORE words, and IIRC you
explained that this kind of minimalism is not the idea behind the Core
wordset.

I think the idea of a standard minimal set of words never really took
off is, that, even more than the rest of Forth, everyone has different
ideas about minimality (and different goals), and if you are after
minimality, compromise is even less attractive than it is otherwise.

- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/

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

#42460 — Re: Minimal wordset (was: New to the group)

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 2:57:18 PM UTC+1, Anton Ertl wrote:
> "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
> >On 10/7/15 8:38 PM, Anton Ertl wrote:
> >> lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> For example the idea that a forth st=
> >>> andard should be a minimal kernel without structures and all the other thin=
> >>> gs that easily can be added in each system. Then there might be a standard =
> >>> that doesn't change from year to year.
> ...
> >> Concerning the idea of a minimal system and that all users then add
> >> their own structures and other things that can be added easily: That's
> >> an idea that comes up regularly (e.g., at this year's EuroForth), and
> >> there have been at least two occasions when people wanted to start a
> >> standard based on that idea.  So it is certainly an attractive idea.
> >
> >"A minimal kernel without structures and all the other things that 
> >easily can be added in each system" is roughly what Forth94 (ANS Forth) 
> >constructed with its CORE wordset (whose words do not, actually, have to 
> >be in a precompiled kernel, but must be available somehow in the system, 
> >if only in paper documentation) and optional "Extension" wordsets.
> 
> If you mean that the Core wordset is the minimal one and that the
> extension wordsets are the things that can be added easily, that's not
> true:
> 
> There are words from the extension wordsets that cannot be defined
> based on core words, e.g., words from the file wordset.
> 
> Moreover, the Core wordset is not perceived as minimal; e.g., at this
> year's EuroForth Peter Knaggs started out by saying that the number of
> words in Core is too large (130 words), and he produced a somewhat
> smaller list (I think, 80-90 words), and Ulrich Hoffmann then defined
> about half of that list through other words from that list.  And at an
> earlier occasion someone asked why a specific word was in core, when
> it could have been defined through other CORE words, and IIRC you
> explained that this kind of minimalism is not the idea behind the Core
> wordset.
> 
> I think the idea of a standard minimal set of words never really took
> off is, that, even more than the rest of Forth, everyone has different
> ideas about minimality (and different goals), and if you are after
> minimality, compromise is even less attractive than it is otherwise.
> 
> - 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/

I do not  undertand: if new features do not need the core set that should be fine? There should be no conflict?

Is Ulrich's wiggled down list available somewhere, together with the starting point?

If you factor out the existing word set to the max - the result should be a minimum list by definition.
And before the discussion of speed comes up - recompiling for speed should do the trick e.g. for the slow words as now 1 +  as 1+  and similar
but not breaking  the idea.

When I discussed this minimum wordset with others it was to find out about the possibilities of different levels for hardware conversion:
Core set in assembler bow   - and conversion to VHDL
and from there it should be possible ( within limits ) that VHDL grabs more and more of the application words if the FPGA size allows - - and the application ( if possible - is later completely in VHDL.
but this forum might be the wrong one for these points.

I am still not sure why nobody in the Forth community has tackled this. 
It has been done in C e.g. Celoxica, and bought up to disappear from the market.

Rather than the handish approach I suggested before, Forth could compile to VHDL ( or Verilog ) / Gates directly.
Simulation in Forth - and Application in Forth or  Gates or somewhere in the middle as as cost allows.
This was my interest in the minimum wordset. Nothing to do with Forth as such.

A better explanation why any minimum wordset implementation has not arrived might be that the existing packages carry too much  ( good ) history and experience that it is difficult.

I see only the clean sheet approach: do it as a project and sell the certified compiler that comes out as the result. 

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

#42483 — Re: Minimal wordset (was: New to the group)

On Thursday, 8 October 2015 16:13:14 UTC+1, JUERGEN  wrote:
> On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 2:57:18 PM UTC+1, Anton Ertl wrote:
> > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> writes:
> > >On 10/7/15 8:38 PM, Anton Ertl wrote:
> > >> lehs <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> writes:
> > >>> For example the idea that a forth st=
> > >>> andard should be a minimal kernel without structures and all the other thin=
> > >>> gs that easily can be added in each system. Then there might be a standard =
> > >>> that doesn't change from year to year.
> > ...
> > >> Concerning the idea of a minimal system and that all users then add
> > >> their own structures and other things that can be added easily: That's
> > >> an idea that comes up regularly (e.g., at this year's EuroForth), and
> > >> there have been at least two occasions when people wanted to start a
> > >> standard based on that idea.  So it is certainly an attractive idea.
> > >
> > >"A minimal kernel without structures and all the other things that 
> > >easily can be added in each system" is roughly what Forth94 (ANS Forth) 
> > >constructed with its CORE wordset (whose words do not, actually, have to 
> > >be in a precompiled kernel, but must be available somehow in the system, 
> > >if only in paper documentation) and optional "Extension" wordsets.
> > 
> > If you mean that the Core wordset is the minimal one and that the
> > extension wordsets are the things that can be added easily, that's not
> > true:
> > 
> > There are words from the extension wordsets that cannot be defined
> > based on core words, e.g., words from the file wordset.
> > 
> > Moreover, the Core wordset is not perceived as minimal; e.g., at this
> > year's EuroForth Peter Knaggs started out by saying that the number of
> > words in Core is too large (130 words), and he produced a somewhat
> > smaller list (I think, 80-90 words), and Ulrich Hoffmann then defined
> > about half of that list through other words from that list.  And at an
> > earlier occasion someone asked why a specific word was in core, when
> > it could have been defined through other CORE words, and IIRC you
> > explained that this kind of minimalism is not the idea behind the Core
> > wordset.
> > 
> > I think the idea of a standard minimal set of words never really took
> > off is, that, even more than the rest of Forth, everyone has different
> > ideas about minimality (and different goals), and if you are after
> > minimality, compromise is even less attractive than it is otherwise.
> > 
> > - 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/
> 
> I do not  undertand: if new features do not need the core set that should be fine? There should be no conflict?
> 
> Is Ulrich's wiggled down list available somewhere, together with the starting point?
> 
> If you factor out the existing word set to the max - the result should be a minimum list by definition.
> And before the discussion of speed comes up - recompiling for speed should do the trick e.g. for the slow words as now 1 +  as 1+  and similar
> but not breaking  the idea.
> 
> When I discussed this minimum wordset with others it was to find out about the possibilities of different levels for hardware conversion:
> Core set in assembler bow   - and conversion to VHDL
> and from there it should be possible ( within limits ) that VHDL grabs more and more of the application words if the FPGA size allows - - and the application ( if possible - is later completely in VHDL.
> but this forum might be the wrong one for these points.
> 
> I am still not sure why nobody in the Forth community has tackled this. 
> It has been done in C e.g. Celoxica, and bought up to disappear from the market.
> 
> Rather than the handish approach I suggested before, Forth could compile to VHDL ( or Verilog ) / Gates directly.
> Simulation in Forth - and Application in Forth or  Gates or somewhere in the middle as as cost allows.
> This was my interest in the minimum wordset. Nothing to do with Forth as such.
> 
> A better explanation why any minimum wordset implementation has not arrived might be that the existing packages carry too much  ( good ) history and experience that it is difficult.
> 
> I see only the clean sheet approach: do it as a project and sell the certified compiler that comes out as the result.

Ting spent years working on minimal Forths. I think he got the number
of primitives down to 16 or so.

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

#42487 — Re: Minimal wordset

Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> writes:
> Ting spent years working on minimal Forths. I think he got the number
> of primitives down to 16 or so.

Various sources on the net claim eForth version 1 has 30 or 31
primitives.  Don't know about version 2.

My toy Forth has 12, but further reductions are possible.

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

#42499 — Re: Minimal wordset

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 4:43:51 AM UTC-4, Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
> Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> writes:
> > Ting spent years working on minimal Forths. I think he got the number
> > of primitives down to 16 or so.
> 
> Various sources on the net claim eForth version 1 has 30 or 31
> primitives.  Don't know about version 2.
> 
> My toy Forth has 12, but further reductions are possible.
Nice! Which 12?

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

#42515 — Re: Minimal wordset

Chris Curl wrote:
>> My toy Forth has 12, but further reductions are possible.
> Nice! Which 12?

\ Definitions:          dodoes exit
\ Control flow:         0branch
\ Literals:             (literal)
\ Memory access:        ! @ c! c@
\ Aritmetic/logic:      + nand
\ Return stack:         >r r>

c! and c@ can go if you're happy with cell-sized chars.

I experimented with removing 0branch, (literal), >r, and r>, but the
result was too painfully slow.

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

#42532 — Re: Minimal wordset

Lars Brinkhoff <lars.spam@nocrew.org> writes:
> \ Memory access:        ! @ c! c@
> c! and c@ can go if you're happy with cell-sized chars.

Alternatively ! and @ can go if you use multiple char-sized operations.

This thing about minimal wordset comes up all the time though, and I
usually don't understand it.  It's cute as a thought exercise (like
here) but at other times (eforth) the implementation slows down without
gaining porting ease.

There's a C translation of eforth that's interesting:

  http://chiselapp.com/user/tehologist/repository/compc/home

I'm not so crazy about how the author writes the metacompiler in C, but
the idea of a small byte-coded virtual machine written in C would seem
to make initial porting to a new processor easy, if there is a C
compiler available for the processor.  Later the VM can be rewritten in
assembler, or the compiler can generate native code (subroutine threaded
or whatever).

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

#42544 — Re: Minimal wordset

On Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:02:36 -0700
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> This thing about minimal wordset comes up all the time though,
> and I usually don't understand it.  It's cute as a thought
> exercise (like here) but at other times (eforth) the
> implementation slows down without gaining porting ease. 

If you are building a Forth engine in hardware, then eliminating
instructions can make opcodes more compact, and reduce the size
of the chip. Both these support faster system operation. 

Also, an inverting logic primitive like NAND is faster in real
transistors, and conveniently suports other bitwise logic. [2]

But eforth does not eliminate OR, because this would slow system
running, and the code for OR is almost identical to the code for
AND XOR +, so there is little extra design or testing to do. 

Also, eforth does not have NAND as a potential primitive factor
for the above because it is more complex to write due to no
support on most micros, and there is little demand for it. [1] 

So, as you note, the minimal wordset thing is most often just
cute thought exercises, but if you were designing a better
moustrap, then this could become challenging and engaging. 

Jan Coombs
-- 
email valid, else fix dots and hyphen
jan4clf2014@murrayhyphenmicroftdotcodotuk

[1] eForth Overview, page 8 
http://www.exemark.com/FORTH/eForthOverviewv5.pdf

[2] \ nand-for-everything


: nand ( a b -- c )  AND INVERT  ;


: mINVERT ( a -- ~a )  -1 nand ;

: mOR ( a b -- a|b )  INVERT SWAP INVERT nand  ;

: mAND ( a b -- a&b )  nand INVERT ;

: mXOR ( a b -- a^b )  
  2DUP nand  
  DUP 
  ROT nand 
  -ROT nand
  nand  ;

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

#42546 — Re: Minimal wordset

Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
>This thing about minimal wordset comes up all the time though, and I
>usually don't understand it.  It's cute as a thought exercise (like
>here) but at other times (eforth) the implementation slows down without
>gaining porting ease.

It does make porting easier.  Gforth EC has replacement code for most
primitives for that reason.  When porting to a new architecture, you
just need to define and debug about 10 primitives at first, and the
rest will be covered by the replacement code.  Then you can add new
primitives one-by-one, and you see immediately, if the new one is
buggy.  Or you can add a whole bunch of primitives, and if the system
does not work, comment half of them out for binary search of where
the bug is.

- 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 2015: http://www.rigwit.co.uk/EuroForth2015/

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

#42509 — Re: Minimal wordset

Den fredag 9 oktober 2015 kl. 10:43:51 UTC+2 skrev Lars Brinkhoff:
> Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> writes:
> > Ting spent years working on minimal Forths. I think he got the number
> > of primitives down to 16 or so.
> 
> Various sources on the net claim eForth version 1 has 30 or 31
> primitives.  Don't know about version 2.
> 
> My toy Forth has 12, but further reductions are possible.

Which are the limitations then? 

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

#42516 — Re: Minimal wordset

Lehs wrote:
>> My toy Forth has 12, but further reductions are possible.
> Which are the limitations then? 

I'm not sure what you mean?  It might be possible to squeeze them down
to 9 or 8.

Or do you ask if my Forth has limitations due to the choise of
primitives?  Only that it's very slow.

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

#42517 — Re: Minimal wordset

Den fredag 9 oktober 2015 kl. 19:53:53 UTC+2 skrev Lars Brinkhoff:
> Lehs wrote:
> >> My toy Forth has 12, but further reductions are possible.
> > Which are the limitations then? 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean?  It might be possible to squeeze them down
> to 9 or 8.
> 
> Or do you ask if my Forth has limitations due to the choise of
> primitives?  Only that it's very slow.

So you can build up i.e. an ANS Forth from these twelve primitives?

An interesting experiment! If one goes for the other extrem, how many primitives are *needed* for optimal speed?

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

#42520 — Re: Minimal wordset

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 7:22:04 PM UTC+1, lehs wrote:
> Den fredag 9 oktober 2015 kl. 19:53:53 UTC+2 skrev Lars Brinkhoff:
> > Lehs wrote:
> > >> My toy Forth has 12, but further reductions are possible.
> > > Which are the limitations then? 
> > 
> > I'm not sure what you mean?  It might be possible to squeeze them down
> > to 9 or 8.
> > 
> > Or do you ask if my Forth has limitations due to the choise of
> > primitives?  Only that it's very slow.
> 
> So you can build up i.e. an ANS Forth from these twelve primitives?
> 
> An interesting experiment! If one goes for the other extrem, how many primitives are *needed* for optimal speed?

Is there somewhere an implementation speed comparison, and if so which application or test set is used?

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

#42521 — Re: Minimal wordset

lehs wrote:
> Lars Brinkhoff wrote:
>> Lehs wrote:
>> >> My toy Forth has 12, but further reductions are possible.
>> > Which are the limitations then? 
>> Only that it's very slow.
> So you can build up i.e. an ANS Forth from these twelve primitives?

Yes!  Or so I strongly believe; I'm not quite finished with that yet.

> An interesting experiment!

Yes, but increasingly futile. :-)

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

#42531 — Re: Minimal wordset

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:22:01 -0700 (PDT), lehs
<skydda.barnen@gmail.com> wrote:

>So you can build up i.e. an ANS Forth from these twelve primitives?
>
>An interesting experiment! If one goes for the other extrem, how
>many primitives are *needed* for optimal speed?

I don't know what you mean by "optimal speed", but beyond straight
subroutine threaded code you need a code generator, not primitives.

Stephen


-- 
Stephen Pelc, stephenXXX@mpeforth.com
MicroProcessor Engineering Ltd - More Real, Less Time
133 Hill Lane, Southampton SO15 5AF, England
tel: +44 (0)23 8063 1441, fax: +44 (0)23 8033 9691
web: http://www.mpeforth.com - free VFX Forth downloads

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

#43075 — Re: Minimal wordset

On 10/9/2015 4:56 PM, Stephen Pelc wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:22:01 -0700 (PDT), lehs
> <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So you can build up i.e. an ANS Forth from these twelve primitives?
>>
>> An interesting experiment! If one goes for the other extrem, how
>> many primitives are *needed* for optimal speed?
>
> I don't know what you mean by "optimal speed", but beyond straight
> subroutine threaded code you need a code generator, not primitives.

I don't recall the specifics, but I recall someone saying they had an 
ITC forth that was faster than an equivalent subroutine threaded forth. 
  Is that realistic?

-- 

Rick

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

#43076 — Re: Minimal wordset

Op Sun, 1 Nov 2015 20:10:46 -0500 schreef rickman:

> On 10/9/2015 4:56 PM, Stephen Pelc wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:22:01 -0700 (PDT), lehs
>> <skydda.barnen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So you can build up i.e. an ANS Forth from these twelve primitives?
>>>
>>> An interesting experiment! If one goes for the other extrem, how
>>> many primitives are *needed* for optimal speed?
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by "optimal speed", but beyond straight
>> subroutine threaded code you need a code generator, not primitives.
> 
> I don't recall the specifics, but I recall someone saying they had an 
> ITC forth that was faster than an equivalent subroutine threaded forth. 
>   Is that realistic?

Perhaps that was on a COSMAC 1802 that had no native call and return.
NEXT would be about 3 times faster than a synthesized call+return pair.

groet Coos

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

Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

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

csiph-web