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

Groups > comp.lang.postscript > #1048 > unrolled thread

What language was the "original" Postscript interpreter written in?

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

Contents

  What language was the "original" Postscript interpreter written in? "luser.droog" <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2012-11-16 18:03 -0600
    Re: What language was the "original" Postscript interpreter written in? Don Lancaster <don@tinaja.com> - 2012-11-17 08:48 -0700
      Re: What language was the "original" Postscript interpreter written in? "luser.droog" <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2012-11-19 00:56 -0600
        Re: What language was the "original" Postscript interpreter written in? luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2013-07-19 23:34 -0700

#1048 — What language was the "original" Postscript interpreter written in?

I know Helmar was implementing array-"operators" very early in his
interpreter so that as much as possible could be built on top of a simpler
core. And ghostscript's docs express a an interest in replacing c-level
operators with higher-level ps equivalents in a similar drive towards
portability.

What is the subset of Postscript necessary to implement the rest of
Postscript using it? And what did Adobe use to create this core? M68000
Assembly? Or did they use C? or some weird custom Alto tool?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1056

On 11/16/2012 5:03 PM, luser.droog wrote:
> I know Helmar was implementing array-"operators" very early in his
> interpreter so that as much as possible could be built on top of a simpler
> core. And ghostscript's docs express a an interest in replacing c-level
> operators with higher-level ps equivalents in a similar drive towards
> portability.
>
> What is the subset of Postscript necessary to implement the rest of
> Postscript using it? And what did Adobe use to create this core? M68000
> Assembly? Or did they use C? or some weird custom Alto tool?
>
>


PostScript was largely based on the concepts of Forth.

Third cousin, twice removed.

-- 
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster                          voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics   3860 West First Street   Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml   email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

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

#1063

Don Lancaster wrote:

> On 11/16/2012 5:03 PM, luser.droog wrote:
>> I know Helmar was implementing array-"operators" very early in his
>> interpreter so that as much as possible could be built on top of a
>> simpler core. And ghostscript's docs express a an interest in replacing
>> c-level operators with higher-level ps equivalents in a similar drive
>> towards portability.
>>
>> What is the subset of Postscript necessary to implement the rest of
>> Postscript using it? And what did Adobe use to create this core? M68000
>> Assembly? Or did they use C? or some weird custom Alto tool?
>>
>>
> 
> 
> PostScript was largely based on the concepts of Forth.
> 
> Third cousin, twice removed.
> 

I greatly appreciate your response, but...
I already knew that. And it's not quite true. Both Forth and Postscript (via
JaM via E&S Design System) drew inspiration from the Stack Architecture
used by Burroughs Large Systems. John Warnock has denied any borrowing from
Forth.

I've got every Postscript book Amazon knows about. I'm looking for info
that's not in the books.

I have a sneaking suspicion that they used a custom Assembler using
something like M4. (Don't bother searching for PS+M4; you'll just find my
earlier question :)

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

#1485

On Monday, November 19, 2012 12:58:16 AM UTC-6, luser- -droog wrote:
> Don Lancaster wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > On 11/16/2012 5:03 PM, luser.droog wrote:
> 
> >> I know Helmar was implementing array-"operators" very early in his
> >> interpreter so that as much as possible could be built on top of a
> >> simpler core. And ghostscript's docs express a an interest in replacing
> >> c-level operators with higher-level ps equivalents in a similar drive
> >> towards portability.
> 
> >> What is the subset of Postscript necessary to implement the rest of
> >> Postscript using it? And what did Adobe use to create this core? M68000
> >> Assembly? Or did they use C? or some weird custom Alto tool?
> 
> 
> 
> > PostScript was largely based on the concepts of Forth.
> 
> > Third cousin, twice removed.


> I greatly appreciate your response, but...
> I already knew that. And it's not quite true. Both Forth and Postscript (via
> JaM via E&S Design System) drew inspiration from the Stack Architecture
> used by Burroughs Large Systems. John Warnock has denied any borrowing from
> Forth.
> 
> 
> I've got every Postscript book Amazon knows about. I'm looking for info
> that's not in the books.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a sneaking suspicion that they used a custom Assembler using
> something like M4. (Don't bother searching for PS+M4; you'll just find my
> earlier question :)


Following the Forth thread to its end. Here's a set of Forth words
that constitute something of a "portable core". 
(ie. port this core, and all the higher level parts come over 
unmodified.)

http://www.bradrodriguez.com/papers/glosslo.txt

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web