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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #28486 > unrolled thread

Forth in oblivion

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

Contents

  Forth in oblivion akk <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-02-16 19:21 +0100
    Re: Forth in oblivion Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-02-16 12:03 -0800
      Re: Forth in oblivion hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-02-16 15:47 -0800
      Re: Forth in oblivion Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2014-03-05 15:25 +0000
    Re: Forth in oblivion visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-02-18 00:06 -0800
      Re: Forth in oblivion "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 06:15 -0500
        Re: Forth in oblivion visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-02-18 09:52 -0800
          Re: Forth in oblivion "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-18 18:16 -0500
            Re: Forth in oblivion visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2014-02-18 19:05 -0800
              Re: Forth in oblivion AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-02-19 09:47 +0100
              Re: Forth in oblivion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-19 04:08 -0600
              Re: Forth in oblivion "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-19 05:39 -0500
            Re: Forth in oblivion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-19 04:09 -0600
              Re: Forth in oblivion "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-19 06:18 -0500
                Re: Forth in oblivion Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-02-19 03:35 -0800
                Re: Forth in oblivion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-02-20 10:06 -0600
            Re: Forth in oblivion "Stanley Daniel de Liver" <notagoodone@invalid.org.invalid> - 2014-02-23 21:17 +0000
              Re: Forth in oblivion "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-02-24 01:18 -0500
                Re: Forth in oblivion "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-02-23 21:44 -1000
                  Re: Forth in oblivion hostilefork@gmail.com - 2014-03-02 04:36 -0800
                    Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-03 14:30 -0500
                      Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] hostilefork@gmail.com - 2014-03-03 15:34 -0800
                        Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-03 16:53 -0800
                          Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] hostilefork@gmail.com - 2014-03-03 17:10 -0800
                          Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-03-04 10:28 +0000
                        Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-03 21:05 -0500
                          Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] hostilefork@gmail.com - 2014-03-03 18:42 -0800
                            Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-03-03 23:54 -0800
                              Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] hostilefork@gmail.com - 2014-03-04 13:49 -0800
                                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-04 17:23 -0500
                                  Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] hostilefork@gmail.com - 2014-03-05 04:02 -0800
                                    Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-05 19:01 -0500
                                      Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-03-06 02:17 +0000
                                        Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-03-06 23:48 -0800
                                          Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-07 17:23 -0500
                                            Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] hostilefork@gmail.com - 2014-03-08 01:37 -0800
                                              Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-08 20:32 -0500
                                Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] Stefan Mauerhofer <smauerhofer@androsoft.ch> - 2014-03-04 22:15 -0800
                            Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-04 16:41 -0500
                            Re: Rebol, Red, Haxe languages, was [Re: Forth in oblivion] "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnothavet.cqm> - 2014-03-04 17:06 -0500
                    Re: Forth in oblivion Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-03-05 11:11 -0600
                    Re: Forth in oblivion hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2014-03-07 21:14 -0800
    Re: Forth in oblivion albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-02-18 13:17 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#28486 — Forth in oblivion

Now Forth has even dropped completely from tiobe index:
http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

Comes from beating this horse dead, instead of feeding it with 
innovation...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#28487

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:21:09 PM UTC, akk wrote:
> Now Forth has even dropped completely from tiobe index:
> 
> http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> Comes from beating this horse dead, instead of feeding it with 
> 
> innovation...

No. From the web site:

"The index is updated once a month. The ratings are based on the number of skilled engineers world-wide, courses and third party vendors."

There's the reason.

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

#28489

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:03:43 PM UTC-7, Mark Wills wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:21:09 PM UTC, akk wrote:
> > Now Forth has even dropped completely from tiobe index:
> 
> > http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
> 
> > Comes from beating this horse dead, instead of feeding it with 
> > innovation...
 
> No. From the web site:
> 
> "The index is updated once a month. The ratings are based on the number of skilled engineers world-wide, courses and third party vendors."
> 
> There's the reason.

Since I don't have a college degree, I'm not an engineer skilled or unskilled.

Anyway, I wouldn't put too much stock in lists like that --- they have Lisp below Pascal and almost falling off the list, although Lisp has always been and always will be the most important language in the computer-science field.

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

#28928

Mark Wills wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:21:09 PM UTC, akk wrote:
>> Now Forth has even dropped completely from tiobe index:
>>
>> http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Comes from beating this horse dead, instead of feeding it with
>>
>> innovation...
>
> No. From the web site:
>
> "The index is updated once a month. The ratings are based on the number of skilled engineers world-wide, courses and third party vendors."
>
> There's the reason.

Reading on: "Popular search engines such as Google, Bing, Yahoo!, 
Wikipedia, Amazon, YouTube and Baidu are used to calculate the ratings. 
Observe that the TIOBE index is not about the best programming language 
or the language in which most lines of code have been written."

Might one express that as "The TIOBE index is about "search engines" (*) 
and not about programming languages"?

(* Scare quotes because since when have Wikipedia, Amazon, YouTube and 
Baidu been search engines?)

-- 
Madam Life's a piece in bloom,
Death goes dogging everywhere:
She's the tenant of the room,
He's the ruffian on the stair.

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

#28512

On Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:21:09 PM UTC-5, akk wrote:
> Now Forth has even dropped completely from tiobe index:
> 
> http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> Comes from beating this horse dead, instead of feeding it with 
> 
> innovation...

When Forth is in oblivion, then it is time to reinvent Forth !

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

#28518

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 03:06:00 -0500, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:21:09 PM UTC-5, akk wrote:

>> Now Forth has even dropped completely from tiobe index:
>>
>> Comes from beating this horse dead, instead of feeding it with
>> innovation...
>
> When Forth is in oblivion, then it is time to reinvent Forth !

Why?

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

#28535

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:15:04 AM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 03:06:00 -0500, <visualforth.com> wrote:
> 
> > When Forth is in oblivion, then it is time to reinvent Forth !
> 
> Why?

It is time to reinvent Forth because Forth isn't present at any important new movement: 
There is no connection between Forth and the Maker Movement, the DIY Movement, the FIRST Movement, the Open Source Hardware Movement, and may be even more.

There should be a connection to OSHA at least.

I have the feeling all new developments for the new and the future generations of computer and microprocessor software developers is missing. That's why I wrote "it is time to reinvent Forth"

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

#28541

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:52:46 -0500, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:15:04 AM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 03:06:00 -0500, <visualforth.com> wrote:

>> > When Forth is in oblivion, then it is time to reinvent Forth !
>>
>> Why?
>
> It is time to reinvent Forth because Forth isn't present at any  
> important new movement: [examples]

Basically, you've declared that Forth should be used for things
simply because it isn't currently ...

I'm left to wonder from where exactly does this positively pompous
position on Forth come from?

So, I have no other choice but to question the rationale.

Should we resurrect other extinct things too, say the Rocky Mountain
locust?

American farmers weren't able to grow crops in the west while it
existed.  America wouldn't have become the "bread basket" of the
world if it existed.  All other food growing regions of the world
must deal with locusts.  I.e., some things make humanity better
simply by being extinct.

I can think of many reasons as to why Forth shouldn't be resurrected,
modified, or reinvented, i.e., allowed to die and become extinct.

The most important of which is there is no programmer demand for Forth.

The second important of which is that other languages are doing the
jobs needed by those new and exciting projects, i.e., no need.

There is no demand or need for a warmed over, patched up, enhanced,
Forth suitable for such "new" jobs that you mentioned either.  It
seems that most people would rather start from scratch with a new
programming languages in order to put their hated memories of other
languages perceived as being flawed to rest.

Having "dead" languages, like Forth, Pascal, Modula, Fortran, COBOL,
Lisp, etc., among the mix of choices for programming languages only
serves to confuse people, delay the inevitable, and waste resources.
You should notice that I didn't list other old languages like C or
BASIC or PL/I etc as being among the "dead."

So, why should a language - apparently decided to be not suitable
for those projects by the projects' authors - be touted for them?


Rod Pemberton

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

#28554

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:16:26 PM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:52:46 -0500, <visualforth.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:15:04 AM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 03:06:00 -0500, <visualforth.com> wrote:
> 
> >> > When Forth is in oblivion, then it is time to reinvent Forth !
> 
> >> Why?
> 
> > It is time to reinvent Forth because Forth isn't present at any  
> > important new movement: [examples]
> 
> Basically, you've declared that Forth should be used for things
> simply because it isn't currently ...

No.

I am using Forth since thirty years now, and I didn't need any other programming language for my projects. Forth is a great programming tool which makes programming easy. I am electrical engineer, having started my career using relays and later TTL ICs before discovering microprocessors. I don't have any formal education in programming despite a one hour lesson in FORTRAN and a half day course in BASIC.
 
I started programming forty years ago writing programs in machine language, eventually developing a little VM to make my work easier. When I heard about Forth, I stopped further development on my own VM, switching over to Forth, and Forth made it possible to do all these projects over the years. I used Forth for testing hardware, too. One of my projects was a MC68332 board for PKI which I only could test because I got a Forth running on this microprocessor. My best programming experience was with the RTX2000. I had several projects with this great machine until it was discontinued. 
 
> I'm left to wonder from where exactly does this positively pompous
> position on Forth come from?
 
I am biased with Forth, as you can see. Forth served me well.
Most of my projects I couldn't have done without Forth.

> So, I have no other choice but to question the rationale.
> Should we resurrect other extinct things too, say the Rocky Mountain
> locust?

I am not familiar with the farming business, I am electrical engineer.
But a farmer would be able to write his programs using Forth.

> I can think of many reasons as to why Forth shouldn't be resurrected,
> modified, or reinvented, i.e., allowed to die and become extinct.

I read the same attitude today about Microsoft with Windows XP.
Microsoft ends the support for XP and urges millions of people to buy new computers. This is outrageous. 50% of all Chinese computers have Windows XP.  
Is Microsoft your employer? It sounds like that. Why should an outstanding tool become extinct instead of becoming promoted?

> The most important of which is there is no programmer demand for Forth.

No wonder if there is nobody promoting Forth in education for the next generation of potential programmers! That's why Forth has to be reinvented!
 
> The second important of which is that other languages are doing the
> jobs needed by those new and exciting projects, i.e., no need.

The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you are not used to Forth, you won't use Forth for your projects. If nobody showed you how to successfully use Forth, you won't be used to Forth. 

> There is no demand or need for a warmed over, patched up, enhanced,
> Forth suitable for such "new" jobs that you mentioned either.  

I didn't ask for a warmed over, patched up, enhanced Forth - I asked for reinventing Forth. In all these years again and again I read about people who tried to invent some tool like Forth, in other words, they tried to reinvent Forth. But they didn't get it done.

> It seems that most people would rather start from scratch with a new
> programming languages in order to put their hated memories of other
> languages perceived as being flawed to rest.

Looks like you are biased, too - the opposite direction.
I am sorry to read about your hated memories of Forth.
I am wondering why you are a member of c.l.f.
The only answer may be that you are waiting for a reinvented Forth which will be a lovable tool for you.

By the way, I can prove you wrong concerning "most people would rather start from scratch". Embedded Systems Design wrote recently: "One of the great mysteries of the embedded market is why design teams don't migrate all code development to new tools like MATLAB or LabView and free themselves of the drudgery of C? Our guess is the legacy code base is large and needs to be supported and that it would take a very brave engineering team to abandon all that code and risk a failed project." 
Source: http://www.embedded.com/design/prototyping-and-development/4372666/Shifting-sands--Trends-in-embedded-systems-design

> Having "dead" languages, like Forth, Pascal, Modula, Fortran, COBOL,
> Lisp, etc., among the mix of choices for programming languages only
> serves to confuse people, delay the inevitable, and waste resources.

You got that wrong. Forth is a living language. 
There will be confusion if you don't know Forth.

> You should notice that I didn't list other old languages like C or
> BASIC or PL/I etc as being among the "dead."
 
I guess BASIC and PL/I are your favorite languages.
For Lucent Technologies I had to develop a manufacturing tool in VB.
I learned VB while using it. I liked it very much, but it was boring after a while. I would have preferred to have a VF instead, a VisualFORTH.
Ten years I waited for a VF, then I wrote it by myself. It's easier to use than VB. Since then I do all my Windows projects with VF.

> So, why should a language - apparently decided to be not suitable
> for those projects by the projects' authors - be touted for them?

It's simple. People are different. 
There are people in this world who appreciate Forth.
Forth should be promoted, because it is a great tool.
The problem is that there are dozens of Forth books and tutorials, but hardly a good introduction why Forth is the natural choice of programming.
I am working on that. 

I am wondering about reading your comments on c.l.f. while Forth apparently has been decided by you to be not suitable for your projects? 

> Rod Pemberton

But thanks for your comments, Rod, anyway.
You are the only one who commented for now.
Aren't there any other people on c.l.f. who are using Forth for their projects?

Dirk Bruehl

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

#28561

Am 19.02.2014 04:05, schrieb visualforth@rocketmail.com:

> But thanks for your comments, Rod, anyway.
> You are the only one who commented for now.
> Aren't there any other people on c.l.f. who are using Forth for their projects?
>
> Dirk Bruehl
>

We left it many years ago due to the lack of skilled developpers AND TOOLS.

Whatever excellent the Forth micro-development and testing system may 
seem (or be essential to some individuals) it is just a flexible DSL on 
assembler level.

And whatever silly the tiobe index is, it just reflects the fact that 
today's requirements for small systems (eg micro PLCs) have expanded to 
far wider levels (say communication, UIs, data) than the old grass roots 
level where Forth still is dwelling .. or should I say dwindling.

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

#28570

visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:
> 
> I didn't ask for a warmed over, patched up, enhanced Forth - I asked
> for reinventing Forth. In all these years again and again I read
> about people who tried to invent some tool like Forth, in other
> words, they tried to reinvent Forth. But they didn't get it done.

That's true.  Forth is rather like Lisp in this regard: people have
tried many times to invent new Lisp-like languages but it remains a
great improvement on all of its sucessors.  Mind you, Lisp, like
Forth, is very malleable: modern Lisps are different from, say, LISP
1.5.

Andrew.

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

#28573

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:05:27 -0500, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:16:26 PM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:52:46 -0500, <visualforth.com> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:15:04 AM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:

>> I can think of many reasons as to why Forth shouldn't be resurrected,
>> modified, or reinvented, i.e., allowed to die and become extinct.
>
> I read the same attitude today about Microsoft with Windows XP.
> Microsoft ends the support for XP and urges millions of people to buy
> new computers. This is outrageous.

Why?

> 50% of all Chinese computers have Windows XP.

The simple fact that the Chinese are using XP is a good enough reason
right there to kill it ... ;-)

But, what exceptionally low percentage of those computers do you believe
had XP legally purchased and installed in China?

> Is Microsoft your employer? It sounds like that.

No.

> Why should an outstanding tool become extinct instead of
> becoming promoted?

Microsoft is a for profit corporation.  Maintaining an operating system
for you costs them money.  Selling another operating system to you
generates money for them.  So, why should they settle for selling you one
operating system when they can sell you five, ten, twenty or more operating
systems in your lifetime?

>> There is no demand or need for a warmed over, patched up, enhanced,
>> Forth suitable for such "new" jobs that you mentioned either.
>
> I didn't ask for a warmed over, patched up, enhanced Forth - I asked for
> reinventing Forth.

If not a warmed over, patched up, enhanced Forth, then this goes to the
point I've Hugh about numerous times.  At what point is Forth no longer
Forth but some other new language?  I.e., you might as well start from
scratch and fix all the know issues with Forth too, e.g., oddly named
ANS Forth words, use of names AND OR XOR instead symbols like & | ^ (from  
C).

>> It seems that most people would rather start from scratch with a new
>> programming languages in order to put their hated memories of other
>> languages perceived as being flawed to rest.
>
> Looks like you are biased, too - the opposite direction.

I was talking about other people in general from what I've seen.

> I am sorry to read about your hated memories of Forth.

I was thinking about the anti-Microsoft FSF/GNU/FOSS crowd who prefer to
kill the old and start anew.  Most of those projects you cited are by  
people
 from the same crowd.

I don't have hated memories of Forth, although I'm not fond of the  
language.
It lacks many of the language features that make C preferred to assembly.
I can code in assembly and did so just the other day, but I'd rather not if
I have the choice.

> I am wondering why you are a member of c.l.f.

I've coded a Forth interpreter.  The early generations were mostly C.
The current generation is mostly Forth with some C.

> The only answer may be that you are waiting for a reinvented Forth which  
> will be a lovable tool for you.
>

No.  C is the answer.  Although, an ITC interpreter for Forth is useful
outside of a Forth language context.  It can be used as the backend for
other interpreted languages or for parsing.

> By the way, I can prove you wrong concerning "most people would rather  
> start from scratch". Embedded Systems Design wrote recently: "One of the  
> great mysteries of the embedded market is why design teams don't migrate  
> all code development to new tools like MATLAB or LabView and free  
> themselves of the drudgery of C?

Drudgery?  It must be a biased article.  TIOBE rankings proves that C and
derivatives are the dominant languages.  If C was truly "drudgery," would
it be so successful over such a long time period?

> Our guess is the legacy code base is large and needs to be supported
> and that it would take a very brave engineering team to abandon all
> that code and risk a failed project.

That seems highly doubtful to me.  All you'd need is an FFI to allow
access to C libraries from your language.

FFI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_function_interface

> You got that wrong. Forth is a living language.

It is?  Where is it alive?

Forth <- dead
OpenFirmware <- dead
PostScript <- dead

Forth seems to succeed in obscure embedded systems
where there is no attention to it from the public:
Kitt Peak telescopes, FedEx package tracking, etc.

Every time Forth is involved in a high profile
project it seems to lead to failure: VALDOCS,
Easywriter, Harris processors, and possibly OLPC ...

> There will be confusion if you don't know Forth.

Why?

I know, or have known, many programming, scripting, and batch languages.

I.e., I can make the same claim about C, or just about any other language
I've ever experienced.  But, the claim would only be truthful about C.

>> You should notice that I didn't list other old languages like C or
>> BASIC or PL/I etc as being among the "dead."
>
> I guess BASIC and PL/I are your favorite languages.

C is my favorite.  PL/I is as powerful as C, but isn't as widely
available as C.  This is rumored to be due to the complexity of
producing a compiler for it.  Forth is as widely available as C,
but not used anywhere near as much.  BASIC was a favorite once,
but it lacked structured coding concepts.  FORTRAN, I absolutely
hated.  Pascal was just about useless.  I've seen BASIC used
very effectively in industry for machine control.  Assembly for
6502, 68000, 80x86 are what they are.

> For Lucent Technologies I had to develop a manufacturing tool in VB.
> I learned VB while using it. I liked it very much, but it was boring
> after a while. I would have preferred to have a VF instead, a
> VisualFORTH.  Ten years I waited for a VF, then I wrote it by myself.
> It's easier to use than VB. Since then I do all my Windows projects
> with VF.
>

Is it going to replace VB in the world?  If not, all VF does is create
source code which is incompatible with all other languages and understood
by very few, if any.

E.g., there ia a guy named Herbert Kleebauer who posts to alt.lang.asm.
He's a very skilled 80x86 (Intel and AMD PC) assembly programmer.  However,
he codes x86 assembly using 68000 style syntax.  He wrote his own  
assembler.
Almost no one who codes x86 assembly understands 68000 style syntax.  And,
it's nearly impossible to convert his syntax to syntaxes commonly used on
x86: GNU GAS, Microsoft MASM, and NASM.  So, no one uses his code.

The point is businesses have the same problem.  They need their code to be
coded in the languages that best fit with the commonly available skills
of programmers in the marketplace.

>> So, why should a language - apparently decided to be not suitable
>> for those projects by the projects' authors - be touted for them?
>
> It's simple. People are different.
> There are people in this world who appreciate Forth.

That's fine.  I appreciate BASIC.  Except for lacking structured coding
concepts, it was a great language to learn general programming.  It's
string processing abilities are far simpler and more effective than any
other language, including C and Forth.  But, I don't code in BASIC anymore.
Although, I would if an employer paid me to do so.

> Forth should be promoted, because it is a great tool.

There are lots of great tools in the world.  Do you own an chainsaw, adze,
hog ring pliers, or a trim router?  No, I don't either ...  But, I do own
hammers, pliers, wrenches, saws, ax, crowbar, etc, which can do many of
the same jobs, or can be used to do jobs they weren't designed to do.

The point is Forth is competing with other languages which all get the
same job done.  So, even if Forth is the "perfect" tool for the job, if
another cheaper, easier, and commonly available tool which programmers
are skilled with is available for use, then it will be used instead.
C is widespread and many people are skilled in it.

> I am wondering about reading your comments on c.l.f. while Forth  
> apparently has been decided by you to be not suitable for your projects?

No, I use C.  I am developing my own language.  Originally, I was  
developing
my own C compilers.  I still am or may be or might not ...  However, a C
compiler is more complicated than creating your own language.  So, now, I'm
truly conflicted between using C and my language.  Why?  The same reason  
that
affected Herbert.  No one will use the code if it's not in a language they
understand or they can use.  So, the other option is to force my language
to look and act like C as much as is possible, or perhaps return to coding
my C compilers, or perhaps a C subset.


Rod Pemberton

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

#28571

Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote:
> I can think of many reasons as to why Forth shouldn't be resurrected,
> modified, or reinvented, i.e., allowed to die and become extinct.
> 
> The most important of which is there is no programmer demand for Forth.

But, strangely, you are still here.  Why is that?

Andrew.

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

#28575

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 05:09:46 -0500, Andrew Haley  
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote:

>> I can think of many reasons as to why Forth shouldn't be resurrected,
>> modified, or reinvented, i.e., allowed to die and become extinct.
>>
>> The most important of which is there is no programmer demand for Forth.
>
> But, strangely, you are still here.  Why is that?
>

I'm surprised you don't know the answer or, more likely, can't
remember it.  FYI, I've answered that question a dozen times now,
and again for "visual..." whatever monicker guy.

Of course, for each of the people who have asked me that,
except the new "visual..." whatever monicker guy, I have
asked the following or something similar to it:

If you don't post any Forth code, don't help new people when they
request it, mostly discuss ancient Forth history and argue about
trivial specification semantics, then why are *you* here?

You could've provided useful posts to the new people but didn't.
Instead, you were spending your time arguing with Anton and Bernd.
So, if you don't like simply seeing informative responses from
me, you could've replied.


Rod Pemberton

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

#28577

I think Chuck tried once to reinvent Forth. His approach is colorForth.

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

#28611

Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 05:09:46 -0500, Andrew Haley  
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote:
> 
>>> I can think of many reasons as to why Forth shouldn't be resurrected,
>>> modified, or reinvented, i.e., allowed to die and become extinct.
>>>
>>> The most important of which is there is no programmer demand for Forth.
>>
>> But, strangely, you are still here.  Why is that?
> 
> I'm surprised you don't know the answer or, more likely, can't
> remember it.  FYI, I've answered that question a dozen times now,
> and again for "visual..." whatever monicker guy.

No, you haven't.  You said that

> I'm working on getting my ITC Forth interpreter in C to pass the
> remaining 1/3rd or so of Hayes core.  Except for a handful of
> primitives (in C), a bunch of variables, and a few parsing words
> (compiled Forth in C), much of it is now coded in Forth (as ASCII
> text).

Which, of course, is no answer at all.  Why implement a weak language
for which there is no demand?

> Of course, for each of the people who have asked me that,
> except the new "visual..." whatever monicker guy, I have
> asked the following or something similar to it:
> 
> If you don't post any Forth code, don't help new people when they
> request it, mostly discuss ancient Forth history and argue about
> trivial specification semantics, then why are *you* here?

Which, of course, is no answer at all.

Andrew.

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

#28719

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:16:26 -0000, Rod Pemberton  
<dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:52:46 -0500, <visualforth@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:15:04 AM UTC-5, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 03:06:00 -0500, <visualforth.com> wrote:
>
>>> > When Forth is in oblivion, then it is time to reinvent Forth !
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
[]
>
> I can think of many reasons as to why Forth shouldn't be resurrected,
> modified, or reinvented, i.e., allowed to die and become extinct.
>
> The most important of which is there is no programmer demand for Forth.
>
Rod, you can't hope to tell an (x) based newsgroup that there's no call  
for (x) unless you want a negative reaction.
  I think that's called trolling.
There's probably 0 demand for anyone's home grown OS or minimal C  
implementation either, but why not just let people be.

>
> Rod Pemberton


-- 
It's a money /life balance.

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

#28728

On Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:17:22 -0500, Stanley Daniel de Liver  
<notagoodone@invalid.org.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:16:26 -0000, Rod Pemberton
> <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote:

<OT>

>> The most important of which is there is no programmer demand for Forth.
>>
> Rod, you can't hope to tell an (x) based newsgroup that there's no call
> for (x) unless you want a negative reaction.

Sure I can.  I don't have to hope to tell.  I have done so many times a
month.  That's what I believe.  You can't stop me.  I've been posting
here for at least seven years now...  Whether my message falls on deaf
ears or reaches the willfully blind is a different issue.  My belief is
no matter how hard you try to block a message, no matter how resilient
some people are in rejecting it, it does get through to most, eventually,
when it's the truth.  Then, once they realize it's the truth, things
begin to slowly change, and eventually build momentum.

Any negative reaction towards me in regards to what I say is symptomatic of
your psychological hang-ups, not mine, in regards to hearing the truth.
I.e., I can't help you cure your negative emotional responses towards  
others
or what they express.  That's something you have to learn how to handle for
yourself or pay a psychologist for.  They're going to tell you the same
thing I just told you.  Pay-up?  It's called self-control.

I will continue to reveal what I recognize as the truth as long as I decide
to post here which will probably be until I deem my Forth interpreter
project finished, or maybe longer ...  I like a few people here.  So, it
could be a while.  Meaning, there is no point in you whining about it  
either.
You're not the first.  You really have no ability to change any of my  
actions
or thoughts on the subject.

>   I think that's called trolling.

AIUI, trolling is intentionally attempting to incite and cause anger.

There is a huge difference between that and expressing the truth even if
it's contradictory to the faith that most here have.  Of course, I express
it here because I think it's good for those here to actually discuss the
issue of how Forth performs relative to other languages.  Without such
discourse, Forth will simply continue to die.

Everyone here says they don't want Forth to die, but they don't practice
what they preach.  They're letting it happen, letting Forth die, by  
rejecting
the reality that Forth as-is just can't compete with other languages.   
They've
got their heads buried in the sand.  Their words and actions don't match.

It's not until Forth users actually accept the truth, instead of rejecting
any and all criticism, and deal with it in a positive, and healthy manner,
instead of a hostile and negative one, that they can begin move forward
with progress and perhaps save Forth from imminent death.

> There's probably 0 demand for anyone's home grown OS [...]

That seems to be true.  Yet, it hasn't stopped at least a dozen people
I know of from producing them.  In that regard, it must be considered to
be a form of individual self-expression like artwork, or an issue of pride,
or a measure of strength of will or self-determination, or an enjoyable
use of time, or perhaps an intellectual challenge.

Of course, I thought *exactly* same thing when I heard about Linux many
years ago: no point, doomed to failure, nearly impossible to succeed.  If
it had remained a personal project of one individual, it probably would've
failed by the mid 1990's.

Well, it took me two decades of attempts with dozens of distro's too poorly
implemented to be of any real use as an OS, and a decade for Linux to dump
it's horrible ext2 filesystem, but here I am today - about 23 years later
 from when I first heard of Linux - posting from a Linux which supports  
*all*
my hardware for the first time ever.  It has a nice GUI too.  It also has
multiple media players and multiple internet browsers.  In fact, they're
same ones you can use with Windows.  Of course, without immense continued
funding, Linux is going to run straight into a wall, stagnate, or suffer
bit-rot.  It seems to be showing some bit-rot already.

Linux is competing against a wealthy commercial producer of an OS and is
fighting a difficult battle against numerous individuals and entities with
all sorts of property rights which are required to implement many aspects
of a full featured OS.  The funding needed to acquire licenses for those
rights is almost non-existant while the funding needed to protect those
rights is almost infinite.

After experiencing Unix SysV, I never would've believed I would *ever*
be using *nix for my OS.  I still don't like the OS, but once you're
in a GUI, if you don't have any serious problems with Linux itself,
and you are able or have someone who can adjust it or set it up for you,
it's not bad now.  As a GUI OS, it's not near Windows level of excellence,
performance, functionality, but it's not bad at all.

> [...] or minimal C implementation either, [...]

There is actually a bit of interest in the latter.  A number of minimal
C implementations have attracted users of the past few years.  That
actually surprised me a bit.   Clearly, there is a severe lack of speed
and functionality from such an implementation.  For a long while, it seemed
I was the only one interested.

These reduced compilers seem to be of interest mostly among those in the
OS development crowd.  Bootstrapping a compiler and toolchain is an issue
for every new OS.  So, simpler compilers are attractive.  Otherwise, you
have to cross-compile (meta-compile to you) your OS.  That means your OS is
dependent on another full-featured OS like Windows or Linux to be compiled.


Rod Pemberton

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

#28731

On 2/23/14 8:18 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:
> There is a huge difference between that and expressing the truth even if
> it's contradictory to the faith that most here have.  Of course, I express
> it here because I think it's good for those here to actually discuss the
> issue of how Forth performs relative to other languages.  Without such
> discourse, Forth will simply continue to die.
>
> Everyone here says they don't want Forth to die, but they don't practice
> what they preach.  They're letting it happen, letting Forth die, by
> rejecting the reality that Forth as-is just can't compete with other languages.
> They've got their heads buried in the sand.  Their words and actions don't match.

The problem here is defining "truth". What you may have experienced as 
"truth" is at great variance with what those of us who have used Forth 
in serious projects have experienced as "truth". The issue for language 
survival isn't so much "truth" (as, "which language is more powerful, 
etc.") it's which has been better promoted, found acceptance due to 
familiarity and peer pressure, etc. These are largely subjective issues, 
not "truth".

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]

#28860

Hello comp.lang.forth (I've never posted here before!)


On 2/23/14 8:18 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> Everyone here says they don't want Forth to die, but they don't practice
> what they preach.  They're letting it happen, letting Forth die, by
> rejecting the reality that Forth as-is just can't compete with other languages.
> They've got their heads buried in the sand.  Their words and actions don't match. 

On Monday, February 24, 2014 2:44:47 AM UTC-5, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote:

> The problem here is defining "truth". What you may have experienced as 
> "truth" is at great variance with what those of us who have used Forth 
> in serious projects have experienced as "truth". The issue for language 
> survival isn't so much "truth" (as, "which language is more powerful, 
> etc.") it's which has been better promoted, found acceptance due to 
> familiarity and peer pressure, etc. These are largely subjective issues, 
> not "truth".

I'll raise a hand and personally define what Elizabeth just said there to be an instance of "truth".  :-)

I think all the not-on-the-Tiobe-index languages share a common pain of trying to explain their value.  Kids today (and even some adults) don't understand the Catch-22 of "your language isn't popular, so I won't take any time to look at it".  (If regardless of merit, how can anything new get popular, if people only look at things that are built on infrastructure that is already popular?)

I use a Forth-inspired language called Rebol, which also not on the Tiobe index.  But if you've eaten Dannon Yogurt (for example), it may be have been one of the containers packed by robots controlled by software from Atronix Engineering...written in Rebol.  Is that enough to make someone who only knows JavaScript look into why to invest in a better language that isn't mentioned in job listings?

(Let me answer that from experience.  The answer is: no.)

Lately I've been trying to help evangelize a new and exciting Rebol-family language called Red.  And having noticed that traction is not very easy to get with the JavaScript/C#/Java crowd, I've noticed by contrast that enthusiasm seems to build quicker with people who have surveyed lesser-known languages like Forth, Haskell, Haxe, etc.

This inspired me to do some research.  I'd like to get an answer to the question of: "For the dedicated members of the Forth community, what needs is Forth meeting that Rebol (today) and Red (tomorrow) can't meet?"

We believe what we're building is a *true* full-stack language; one binary to rule them all, zero-install, cross-compiling, under 1 megabyte.  Is that crazypants?  Might sound it, but it's a real thing!

http://www.red-lang.org/p/contributions.html

I'll admit a lack of Forth knowledge personally (though many in the Rebol community have used it).  But skimming Wikipedia I see:

: FLOOR5 ( n -- n' )   DUP 6 < IF DROP 5 ELSE 1 - THEN ;

Later expressed more succinctly as:

: FLOOR5 ( n -- n' ) 1- 5 MAX ;

So Rebol is not stack-based.  *But* being homoiconic you can build stack-based dialects if you need them, and switch evaluative contexts on a dime.  So we can talk about that, and maybe we should?  But anyway, in the default evaluator we'd just write that as:

floor5: function [v] [either (v < 6) 5 [v - 1]]

Note that Rebol is case-insensitive.  EITHER here is a ternary operator; the first is the condition, then a true-branch value and a false-branch value.  Branches may be in a block, and blocks by convention evaluate to their last value.  (Which is why there's no return.)

FUNCTION takes two arguments; a specification block and a body block.  And because EITHER is a function taking arguments like any other, you can put your code and values in variables:

floor5: function [v] [
    condition: (v < 6)
    true-branch: 5
    false-branch: [v - 1]
    either condition true-branch false-branch
]

Or given that the whole language is homoiconic, you could save that code in a block... to either evaluate or use as data, if that made more sense:

code: [floor5: function [v] [either (v < 6) 5 [v - 1]]]

And if you wanted to you could iterate it with the same series APIs you use for strings, binaries, etc.  The first symbol is of type SET-WORD!, the second is a WORD!, then you have a BLOCK! containing the single WORD! v, then another BLOCK! with a WORD (either) followed by a PAREN! block containing three elements, etc. etc.  Lisp on steroids with Forth heritage.

We've got lots of goodies and borrowed things, like CASE:

foo: quote bar:
case [
    integer? foo [
        print "Foo is an integer."
    ]
    set-word? foo [
        print ["Foo is a set-word!, and its spelling is" to-string foo]
    ]
    true [
        print "Case takes expressions and code blocks, runs first block that matches"
    ]
]

So rather than be in oblivion, I'm wondering if we can team up and share knowledge?  We are still at the design input phase for Rebol v.3 (open source Apache2 as of 12-Dec-2012!) and Red has been BSD since the beginning.  So getting input from Forth users would be great for us.  We're a friendly and thriving community on StackOverflow chat, and there's a good vibe to it:

http://rebolsource.net/go/chat-faq

So as the kids on the playground might say: can you and I be friends?  :-)  Or even if we have to stay on separate paths, I'd like to know *why*.  What's the missing feature that our Forth-inspired language didn't take, which is leading to your lack of satisfaction?  If this isn't the right place or people to ask that question, where should I be taking it?

Thanks for reading!

Best,
--Brian

P.S. http://blog.hostilefork.com/why-rebol-red-parse-cool/

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web