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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #59221

Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long)

Show all headers | View raw

mhx@iae.nl writes:
>I posted mmu.frt on CLF long ago(https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.forth/HljHYyMLob0/Zb7ay74dnWkJ ,
>sorry -- no decent reference possible with Google).

There are two mmu.frt in the current iforth distribution:

dfwforth/examples/benchmar/mmu.frt contains the benchmarks from
<http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/bench.zip> in one file, preceded by
non-portable timing code.

dfwforth/examples/benchmar/mmul/mmu.frt contains the matrix multiply
stuff, but you need to modify the file in order to run it on a
different system.  But even before checking for the system, it starts
with the non-standard word ANEW (which means it does not load on
Gforth and SwiftForth).  vfxlin takes that hurdle, but then trips over

S" ../../lib/ndp387.fth" INCLUDED

When I comment out the ANEW, gforth trips over 

include fsl_utilgf.fs 

and the next line

INCLUDE dynmem.fs

also looks suspicious.  I have no such files anywhere (Gforth comes
with a file fsl-util.4th, however, but I have no idea what dynmem.fs
refers to), neither in the dfwforth files, nor in the Gforth files.

>I think portability is driven by people wanting to run
>other's code, and *complaining when it doesn't.*

There are two sides to the issue.  The recipient of the complaint
needs to then actually fix the portability problem, and give feedback
that it has been fixed.

As a program author, you can also be a little bit proactive, and try
the program out on a number of systems.  And when you do that
regularly, you want to do it with scripts, such as

for FORTH in "gforth -e" sf vfxlin iforth; do 
  $FORTH "include program.4th run-test bye"
done

And then it becomes pretty obvious that changing the source file to
configure the Forth system is not a winner (there are other reasons,
too).  Conversely, if you make it inconvenient to test your program on
different systems, you won't be testing it on different systems, and
then your program will not be portable.

> When
>it is too easy to fix the problem, Forth programmers
>don't bother to signal the vendor about problems.

My experience is: When the vendor prefers to make excuses why the
problem is not a real problem, I stop reporting such problems to him.

>2. system-independent specification of paths, files, directories
>(esp. how to work with relative includes)

When I pursued this, there were a few programmers who were interested
in it, one vendor who was dead set against it, and otherwise, very
little support either way.  I eventually gave up after failing to
achieve consensus on even the most basic things.

A new effort was started at the last meeting, and I wish them well.
If you want to see something come out of it, then don't just lean back
when they produce something, in the assumption that it will eventually
come through.  Express your support (and, if necessary, criticism).

>3. Foreign function interface (call C, Fortran, system, callbacks)

That's on my ToDo list, although maybe less ambitious than this list.

>6. Parallel execution, threads, tasks

That's also on the Forth200x ToDo list (I think Bernd Paysan is one of
those who is tasked to work on this).

>8. An (informal) testing standard, how to present published code.

For testing we have the enhanced Hayes tester ttester.fs.  

For presenting published code, theforth.net has guidelines:
<http://theforth.net/guidelines>

Of course, one may want additional properties for the packages (such
as "options should be settable without changing the source code"), but
I think the basic guidelines are long enough, and the rest should be
part of a common consensus that someone may write down as a memo or
checklist.

>Maybe FORML should come back.

There is EuroForth, this year near Vienna.  Maybe you can take the
time to participate.

- 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 2017: http://www.euroforth.org/ef17/

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-13 07:34 +0000
  Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 11:16 -0700
    Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 11:49 -0700
      Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 13:38 -0700
        Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) mhx@iae.nl - 2017-05-13 15:08 -0700
          Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 00:51 -0700
          Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-14 07:32 +0000
            Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) mhx@iae.nl - 2017-05-14 02:46 -0700
              Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-14 14:57 +0000
                Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-05-15 19:11 -0700
    Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-14 08:14 +0000
  Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-05-13 15:58 -0700
    Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-14 07:01 +0000
  Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-05-14 19:04 -0700
    Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-15 06:10 +0000
      Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-05-15 01:49 -0700
        Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-15 14:33 +0000
  Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-15 13:44 +1000
    Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-05-15 04:43 -0500
    Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-15 15:03 +0000
      Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) "HAA" <someone@microsoft.com> - 2017-05-17 00:10 +1000
  Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 09:04 -0700
    Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-17 15:54 +0000
      Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) mhx@iae.nl - 2017-05-17 10:29 -0700
      Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 23:53 -0700
        Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) pahihu <pahihu@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 02:34 -0700
  Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 22:48 -0700
    Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-17 06:51 +0000
      Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 09:29 -0700
    Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-05-17 11:07 +0000
      Re: Forth-94 vs. Forth-2012 FP data (long) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2017-05-17 15:02 +0000

csiph-web