New beginner in Forth
newsWanadoo
many years ago, I started programming in Forth with an Accorn an d an Apple
II.
Now I use Windows XP I would start again.
Which Forth programming tool can you recommand to me ?
Patrick
Elizabeth D Rather
news:4218a944$0$837$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr...
There's a free evaluation version of our SwiftForth product for Windows on
our web site, www.forth.com. It comes with extensive documentation in pdf
form to help you with some of the issues with current Forths. There are
also books available on the site that may help you.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
--
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310-491-3356
5155 W. Rosecrans Ave. #1018 Fax: +1 310-978-9454
Hawthorne, CA 90250
http://www.forth.com
"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================
Richard Owlett
> "newsWanadoo" <fpat...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:4218a944$0$837$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr...
>
>>Hello,
>>many years ago, I started programming in Forth with an Accorn an d an
>>Apple II.
>>Now I use Windows XP I would start again.
>>Which Forth programming tool can you recommand to me ?
>>
>>Patrick
>
>
> There's a free evaluation version of our SwiftForth product for Windows on
> our web site, www.forth.com. It comes with extensive documentation in pdf
> form to help you with some of the issues with current Forths. There are
> also books available on the site that may help you.
>
> Best regards,
> Elizabeth
>
She's evidently too bashful to mention _Forth Application Techniques_ at
$19.95. Although it emphasizes FORTH Inc. products, it's useful for any
modern FORTH.
crypto_s...@hotmail.com
Of course Mrs. Rather "forgot" to mention there are a myriad other
forths that are just as good from which you could learn. As a warning,
for future reference to the newcomer, Mrs. Rather is not impartial. She
mostly tries to push her products, and she just might try to bash on
you as you are trying to learn something by asking questions on this
site.
My advice is to look around. Type in "forth compilers" under google.
Win32Forth is a solid start and gives you fun tutorials to walk
through.
Given the broad range of choice that is open to you, I suggest you try
a few compilers before you settle down. You can weight the pros and
cons as you go along.
Good luck in your search!
Stonelock
Stephen Pelc
An evaluation version of our commercial VFX Forth for Windows
is available from:
http://www.mpeltd.demon.co.uk
Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, steph...@INVALID.mpeltd.demon.co.uk
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.mpeltd.demon.co.uk - free VFX Forth downloads
Bill Spight
crypto_s...@hotmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> As a warning,
> for future reference to the newcomer, Mrs. Rather is not impartial. She
> mostly tries to push her products, and she just might try to bash on
> you as you are trying to learn something by asking questions on this
> site.
>
I have been mostly lurking on this newsgroup for some time. I have not
observed any bashing on newcomers. In fact, people here are very
helpful.
Some of the discussions have gotten quite heated, and some of the
veterans may take potshots at each other. I do not recall Elizabeth
Rather indulging in ad hominem attacks.
This is a good place to learn about Forth.
Best wishes,
Bill
Alex McDonald
but patient, polite and helpful. Shame on you.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Jerry Avins
> Of course Mrs. Rather "forgot" to mention there are a myriad other
> forths that are just as good from which you could learn. As a warning,
> for future reference to the newcomer, Mrs. Rather is not impartial. She
> mostly tries to push her products, and she just might try to bash on
> you as you are trying to learn something by asking questions on this
> site.
Dry up. She didn't say hers was the only one or the best one, just that
it's there and well documented. I expect that we'll hear from MPLTD too,
unless Stephen Pelc is more reticent than I imagine.
> My advice is to look around. Type in "forth compilers" under google.
> Win32Forth is a solid start and gives you fun tutorials to walk
> through.
>
> Given the broad range of choice that is open to you, I suggest you try
> a few compilers before you settle down. You can weight the pros and
> cons as you go along.
>
> Good luck in your search!
Yeah. From me too.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
rickman
> Richard Owlett wrote:
>
>>Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
>
>>>There's a free evaluation version of our SwiftForth product for
>
> Windows on
>
>>>our web site, www.forth.com. It comes with extensive documentation
>
> in pdf
>
>>>form to help you with some of the issues with current Forths.
>
> There are
>
>>>also books available on the site that may help you.
>>>
>>>Best regards,
>>>Elizabeth
>>>
>>
>>She's evidently too bashful to mention _Forth Application Techniques_
>
> at
>
>>$19.95. Although it emphasizes FORTH Inc. products, it's useful for
>
> any
>
>>modern FORTH.
>
>
> Of course Mrs. Rather "forgot" to mention there are a myriad other
> forths that are just as good from which you could learn. As a warning,
> for future reference to the newcomer, Mrs. Rather is not impartial. She
> mostly tries to push her products, and she just might try to bash on
> you as you are trying to learn something by asking questions on this
> site.
What is up with all the Elizabeth bashing lately? I have never seen her
post anything in this group that would be considered "bashing" or even
remotely negative. Of course she mentions her products... she is in
business to sell products. She didn't say hers was the only one nor
that there was nothing "better".
Give the lady a break!
George Hubert
> crypto_s...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Of course Mrs. Rather "forgot" to mention there are a myriad other
> > forths that are just as good from which you could learn. As a warning,
> > for future reference to the newcomer, Mrs. Rather is not impartial. She
> > mostly tries to push her products, and she just might try to bash on
> > you as you are trying to learn something by asking questions on this
> > site.
>
> Dry up. She didn't say hers was the only one or the best one, just that
> it's there and well documented. I expect that we'll hear from MPLTD too,
> unless Stephen Pelc is more reticent than I imagine.
>
> > My advice is to look around. Type in "forth compilers" under google.
> > Win32Forth is a solid start and gives you fun tutorials to walk
> > through.
> >
> > Given the broad range of choice that is open to you, I suggest you try
> > a few compilers before you settle down. You can weight the pros and
> > cons as you go along.
> >
> > Good luck in your search!
>
> Yeah. From me too.
>
> Jerry
Given there are a large number of Forth that will run on XP ( either
directly or in a DOS box ) it's unreasonable to expect anyone to list
them all. Win32Forth ( which has already been mentioned ) can be found
at <a href= "http://win32forth.org/" >Win32Forth Project Group </a>
George Hubert
Albert van der Horst
Of course I would recommend ciforth (in its wina form) as it is
concise on one hand and sufficiently powerful to do non-trivial
things. My website contains proof of the latter statement.
I would not expect Elizabeth to mention ciforth. If only
that she cannot vow for it for the reason she never tried it.
Neither have I tried Swiftforth. And I cannot find fault with
the way she answers questions, always polite and full of
patience.
>My advice is to look around. Type in "forth compilers" under google.
This is bad advice. You will drown. Better stick to Forths
that relate to people that hang out in comp.lang.forth.
>Win32Forth is a solid start and gives you fun tutorials to walk
>through.
>
>Given the broad range of choice that is open to you, I suggest you try
>a few compilers before you settle down. You can weight the pros and
>cons as you go along.
This is good advice. But it can be hard on a novice. It may
take a considerable investment before a reasonable choice can
be made. Some work up front may save time later.
A good criterion is inspecting the documentation. If you are
new you probably are in a much better position to probe the
quality of the documentation than that of the implementation.
You are not interested in a good implementation without
excellent documentation anyway.
>
>Good luck in your search!
Seconded.
>
>Stonelock
>
Groetjes Albert
--
--
Albert van der Horst,Oranjestr 8,3511 RA UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
One man-hour to invent,
One man-week to implement,
One lawyer-year to patent.
Andreas Kochenburger
<alex...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>"Bash on you"? What makes you say that? I've found Elizabeth nothing
>but patient, polite and helpful. Shame on you.
I am seconding that!
Cheers, Andreas
crypto_s...@hotmail.com
Bill Spight wrote:
> Dear Patrick,
>
> crypto_s...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > As a warning,
> > for future reference to the newcomer, Mrs. Rather is not impartial.
She
> > mostly tries to push her products, and she just might try to bash
on
> > you as you are trying to learn something by asking questions on
this
> > site.
> >
>
> I have been mostly lurking on this newsgroup for some time. I have
not
> observed any bashing on newcomers. In fact, people here are very
> helpful.
Agreed, the ambiance on the forum is actually much better than most.
> Some of the discussions have gotten quite heated, and some of the
> veterans may take potshots at each other. I do not recall Elizabeth
> Rather indulging in ad hominem attacks.
Heated discussions isn't a problem as far as I'm concerned.
Continuously pushing to try to make your own products stand out, is.
People are here to get information, not to get unsolicited publicity.
> This is a good place to learn about Forth.
Agreed.
Regards
Stonelock
crypto_s...@hotmail.com
Helpful, sometimes.
Polite, she is.
Diplomatic? No.
Regards
Stonelock
crypto_s...@hotmail.com
I didn't :). You have to pick up relevant information. Understanding
something correctly takes time, no matter how you put it. Sailing
through such a vast ocean, this is one of the best ways, I think, to
get impartial information, forming a good understanding of the matter
at hand. Hanging in one spot always taking in a small subset of what's
available can only make you stall. Its not sufficient to truely
progress. Looking up on this forum can help you progress, but it is
clearly insufficient.
It took me along while to corner down the relevance of FORTH ( On and
off for a few years ). It eventually makes you realize it is in harmony
with the natural way the human brain operates. The language actually
helps you think! Which is not what I can say of any of the other
languages I know.
FORTH is broader than it being an extremely small compiler or an
efficient design approach. It is fundamentally optimal in all respects
and reaches far into our way of perceiving problems and describing
them.
> >Win32Forth is a solid start and gives you fun tutorials to walk
> >through.
> >
> >Given the broad range of choice that is open to you, I suggest you
try
> >a few compilers before you settle down. You can weight the pros and
> >cons as you go along.
>
> This is good advice. But it can be hard on a novice. It may
> take a considerable investment before a reasonable choice can
> be made. Some work up front may save time later.
Possibly. This perticular road lead me to create my own FORTH. I learnt
enough to be able to create a standalone version of it. I learnt quite
a bit about the language in the process and ended up fusing this
project with another project of mine which was creating an OS.
If the guy is coming back to a language after a while not using it,
especially a language that is not very popular, he is clearly not just
doing this because he has to. It's a hobby. He likes to code, he likes
to learn things. He'll figure out what he likes best ;). Personally, if
I had had to dive in FORTH user documentation for any of the compilers,
I would have given up out of boredom ( which is what actually happened
everytime I was trying the language on popular forth compilers ). What
finally made me dive in for good was massive input of information from
that ocean you advise him against ;).
> A good criterion is inspecting the documentation. If you are
> new you probably are in a much better position to probe the
> quality of the documentation than that of the implementation.
> You are not interested in a good implementation without
> excellent documentation anyway.
>
> >
> >Good luck in your search!
>
> Seconded.
Regards
Stonelock
Guy Macon
crypto_s...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Of course Mrs. Rather "forgot" to mention there are a myriad other
>forths that are just as good from which you could learn.
"Just as good" is a subjective opinion, not a statement of fact.
>As a warning, for future reference to the newcomer, Mrs. Rather
>is not impartial. She mostly tries to push her products,
You are assuming that the reader is stupid. Anyone who has any
experience knows that someone who makes a product knows more
about their own product than about other products, and thinks that
their product is the best - because if they didn't think that they
would simply change their product to make it into whatever they
consider to be better.
>and she just might try to bash on you as you are trying to learn
>something
That has not been my experience.
>by asking questions on this site.
This isn't a "site" This is Usenet. Google is telling you a big fib
when they tell you that it is a "Google Group." We were here before
Google and before the Web, and we will be here long after Google is
gone.
Guy Macon
crypto_s...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Patient, probably.
>Helpful, sometimes.
>Polite, she is.
>
>Diplomatic? No.
It appears that you are the only person here with the above opinion.
My evaluation is:
Patient, always.
Helpful, always.
Polite, always.
Diplomatic, always.
John Doty
There are many Forth dialects. The most common is ANS Forth, which has a
number of commercial and non-commercial implementations. Beware that its
vendors and users like to pretend that it's the only Forth. The inventor
of Forth, Chuck Moore, does not use ANS Forth. Go figure.
I really wish that ANS Forthers would correctly use "ANS Forth" rather
than "Forth" to describe their dialect. The real Forth world is much
wider and more diverse.
-jpd
Jerry Avins
John,
I speak English most of the time. It seems that you would tell me no, I
speak Bronx. There are indeed many dialects of Forth, some common, some
formerly common, and some obscure. For my part, they're all Forth. If
you're claiming that ANS Forth isn't Forth, then I disagree with you.
I'm not aware of any claim that ANS Forth is the only Forth.
clvrmnky
add to the overall noise on this group (which is slight compared with
many others) and feel that I may just be participating in a thread
intended to as a troll. However, I feel that the egregious remarks made
earlier must be countered in a more pointed way. I apologize to others
in advance if all I've done is added to a pointless conversation. Mea
culpa.]
Ms. Rather has been participating on this newsgroup as both a
representative of Forth, Inc., and as a representative as a Forth
professional for many, many years. She is allowed to do both, and I see
no evidence at all to suggest that all she uses this forum for is to
push Forth, Inc. products. She has never, in my long experience here,
been particularly vocal or pushy about presenting Forth, Inc. products
on this newsgroup.
Put plainly, I'm simply amazed you would suggest such a thing, and upon
reading your comments immediately considered your posting part of the a
recent trend in trolling by bad-mouthing Ms. Rather.
In fact, I often /appreciate/ when Ms. Rather (or Mr. Pelc, for that
matter) tells us how things are done at her shop because it shows me
more about how enterprise Forth products are actually made. Every
posting I can recall that mentions specific products is to clarify a
point or explain a specific approach. Ditto for Mr. Pelc and MPE.
Recall that both of these commercial vendors also have long years of
actual Forth experience behind them. Direct, personal experience. And
they are willing to share that with us. This is generally considered a
Good Thing.
Please note that within the URL that Ms. Rather gave, only *one* click
away was a nice start page with all kinds of third-party Forth
information unrelated to Forth, Inc.
How is this not useful information? You are encouraged to /add/ to this
information for new people, if you like. Bike-shedding about one of the
cornerstones of the Forth language is silly. Either join in and help,
or get out of the way. I mean, your suggestion was a.) beware of Ms.
Rather and b.) search Google for a phrase that is doomed to be of no
help, at all. What kind of help is that?
Ms. Rather, and Google Groups backs me up here, has never participated
in ad hominem attacks on anyone in c.l.f., especially those who are
posting as raw beginners to Forth. On the contrary, Ms. Rather has gone
out her way to be helpful with people new to Forth.
Simply put, I think your comment was out-of-place, inconsiderate and
just plain misleading. I don't care if you /meant/ it to sound this
way. The fact is that it does.
John Doty
> There are indeed many dialects of Forth, some common, some
> formerly common, and some obscure. For my part, they're all Forth. If
> you're claiming that ANS Forth isn't Forth, then I disagree with you.
> I'm not aware of any claim that ANS Forth is the only Forth.
It's rarely claimed explicitly, but the words used by ANSers tend to
exclude other Forths. Elizabeth, for example, wrote in this thread:
> There's a free evaluation version of our SwiftForth product for
> Windows on
> our web site, www.forth.com. It comes with extensive documentation in
> pdf
> form to help you with some of the issues with current Forths.
Now SwiftForth is an ANS Forth: its docs are likely to be rather
confusing if you're using some other Forth dialect.
Then Richard followed up with:
> She's evidently too bashful to mention _Forth Application Techniques_
> at $19.95.
> Although it emphasizes FORTH Inc. products, it's useful for any modern
> FORTH.
I'm sure it's useful with ANS Forth, but there are other modern Forths.
In addition, Andrew has asserted in an earlier thread that "Forth"
unqualified means "ANS Forth": only references to other dialects need
qualification.
Would it kill you folks to write "ANS Forth" when that's what you mean?
ANS Forth probably *is* what the original poster is after, but why write
about it in a way that will mislead him into believing the only
"current" or "modern" Forths are ANS?
-jpd
Guy Macon
John Doty wrote:
>It's rarely claimed explicitly, but the words used by ANSers tend to
>exclude other Forths.
I believe that you are imagining this. ANSers and non-ANSers
tend to use "ANS Forth" when they are speaking *only* of ANS
Forths "[productname]Forth" when speaking of a particular Forth
(ANS or not) and "Forth" when speaking of either all Forths or
some subset of Forths to be determined by the context.
>Would it kill you folks to write "ANS Forth" when that's what you mean?
Why? I often say "car" when I am speaking only of "Subaru GL 4x4 Wagon."
I often say "computer" when am spaeking only of "Compaq Proliant 5500R
Server."
"ANS Forth" is a subset of "Forth." I advise that you read posts with
this as your starting assumption.
crypto_s...@hotmail.com
I perceive things differently. Mentioning www.forth.com in a big
proportion of her posts and advertizing her products, books, whenever
an occasion presents itself is NOT what I consider not pushing
products.
>
> Put plainly, I'm simply amazed you would suggest such a thing, and
upon
> reading your comments immediately considered your posting part of the
a
> recent trend in trolling by bad-mouthing Ms. Rather.
Trolling is not a trend. It seems people here perceive her differently.
I will refrain from making such comments to others in the future. But
the lady still profoundly annoys me.
> In fact, I often /appreciate/ when Ms. Rather (or Mr. Pelc, for that
> matter) tells us how things are done at her shop because it shows me
> more about how enterprise Forth products are actually made.
Your fun, not mine. I actually like learning a bunch of things, thats
what I do everyday when I get home from work. But I perceive this
exposure you mention as more publicity. It reached the point where I
simply ignore her posts as I find they do not bring much to me.
Every
> posting I can recall that mentions specific products is to clarify a
> point or explain a specific approach.
This claim is disproved by the very answer she gave in this thread.
Somebody asks about good FORTH compiler*S* and she makes reference to
www.forth.com once again. I think that anybody looking for anything
related to FORTH on google will end up on her site at some point
anyways. There is no need to mention it ad nauseam on usenet.
Ditto for Mr. Pelc and MPE.
> Recall that both of these commercial vendors also have long years of
> actual Forth experience behind them. Direct, personal experience.
And
> they are willing to share that with us. This is generally considered
a
> Good Thing.
I don't mind them sharing experience. But sharing experience doesn't
imply having to mention your own products.
> Please note that within the URL that Ms. Rather gave, only *one*
click
> away was a nice start page with all kinds of third-party Forth
> information unrelated to Forth, Inc.
Type "forth" under google and click on the second result that comes up.
> How is this not useful information? You are encouraged to /add/ to
this
> information for new people, if you like. Bike-shedding about one of
the
> cornerstones of the Forth language is silly.
Cornerstone is relative. I will not get into a debate about this as it
is pointless.
Either join in and help,
> or get out of the way. I mean, your suggestion was a.) beware of Ms.
> Rather and b.) search Google for a phrase that is doomed to be of no
> help, at all. What kind of help is that?
Thats how I learnt about the FORTH language and approach and figured
out how to write a standalone FORTH compiler of my own. I am merely
sharing the experience I have which you so glorify in them. You are of
course free to ignore my posts if you consider my experience to be
irrelevant to you.
> Ms. Rather, and Google Groups backs me up here, has never
participated
> in ad hominem attacks on anyone in c.l.f., especially those who are
> posting as raw beginners to Forth. On the contrary, Ms. Rather has
gone
> out her way to be helpful with people new to Forth.
That is your perception.
> Simply put, I think your comment was out-of-place, inconsiderate and
> just plain misleading. I don't care if you /meant/ it to sound this
> way. The fact is that it does.
I meant it exactly as said. As mentioned above, I will refrain from
making such comments to newcomers in the future.
Stonelock
Jeff Fox
> I'm not aware of any claim that ANS Forth is the only Forth.
Nonetheless, you are aware of repeated claims by prominent
ANS Forth promoters that specific non-ANS Forths are simply
not Forth at all. And you are also aware of repeated statements
in this newsgroup that the word Forth by itself means ANS Forth.
There is very little difference between what you know to be true
and what you deny in this case.
ANS Forth has often been used a line in the sand by which
certain people's work and certain environments can be declared
not Forth at all. The term Forth is used to mean ANS Forth by
many people in this newsgroup. You know that.
And you knew that John Doty was refering to this when he stated
that he wished that some ANS Forthers would call their dialect
ANS Forth and not insist that 'Forth' means 'ANS Forth.' I think
John Doty is making a perfectly reasonable request. But in this
newsgroup he should expect to have his reasonable statement
about ANS Forthers using the terms ANS Forth and Forth
interchangably, denying that non-ANS Forths are Forth at
all, and saying that people using non-ANS Forths should
not call their work Forth into the absurdism that you
are not aware of anyone claiming that ANS Forth is the
only Forth.
Despite your smoke screen most people knew what John Doty
was refering too. ANS Forth and Forth are not interchangable
terms as many would like. It would be nice if some people would
make a distiction between Forth and ANS Forth instead of
insisting that some non-ANS Forths simply aren't Forth at all.
Best Wishes
Jeff Fox
> I believe that you are imagining this.
It has been a while since I have read statements by ANS
Forth proponents saying such things as 'colorforth isn't
Forth, it is Forth like language.' But such repeated
statements are history, not imagination.
> ANSers and non-ANSers
> tend to use "ANS Forth" when they are speaking *only* of ANS
> Forths "[productname]Forth" when speaking of a particular Forth
> (ANS or not) and "Forth" when speaking of either all Forths or
> some subset of Forths to be determined by the context.
Some Forth users make an effort to use the term 'Forth'
making generic statements about the language and to
identify specific dialects of Forth when talking about
specific features of specific dialects. Some Forth users
promote the idea that the word 'Forth' by itself should
be interchangable with 'ANS Forth.' So they make many
many statements about 'Forth' that really only apply to
ANS Forth and which exclude other things that other people
are calling Forth from what they say about 'Forth.'
It would be nice if ALL ANS Forth promoters would not
deny that a number of outspoken ANS Forth promoters
claim that non-ANS Forths are simply not Forth at all.
There are ANS Forth promoters who deny that other Forths
are Forth at all, and there are ANS Forth promoters who
say that they see no problem with that and some who even
deny that they see other ANS Forth promoters claiming
that the term Forth means ANS Forth or claiming that
non-ANS Forths aren't Forth.
Which ANS Forth promoters are more confrontational? Those
that claim that non-ANS Forths aren't Forth, or those that
some ANS Forth promoters are not doing that? Which offense
is more serious?
Personally I think the denial that some ANS Forth promoters
claim that other Forths aren't Forth at all is far worse
than the act of declaring that Forth means ANS Forth. I
think the are equally guilty, but one only has the courage
to be an accessory trying to cover up the actions of the
other.
> >Would it kill you folks to write "ANS Forth" when that's what you
mean?
>
> Why?
Because Forth and ANS Forth are not the same thing! Sheesh!
Because there is little difference between saying that Forth
means ANS Forth and saying that specific non-ANS Forths
simply are not Forth at all. Having a standard does not
mean that certain people now own the term Forth and have
the right to use it exclusively to declare that non-standard
means non-Forth as has been done in the past.
> "ANS Forth" is a subset of "Forth." I advise that you read posts
with
> this as your starting assumption.
And I advise people who don't want to promote Forth biggotry
to write such things as you wrote in above paragraph so that
the innocent can read them and make that above assumption. I
would advise the ANS Forth promoters to not insist that Forth
means ANS Forth and to not make statements that non-ANS Forths
are not Forth at all.
Best Wishes
Jeff Fox
> My evaluation is:
>
> Patient, always.
> Helpful, always.
> Polite, always.
> Diplomatic, always.
I will agree, but I will add that she can be so diplomatic
as to not give straight answers to questions that were
asked over and over and over for years but did give
very diplomatic statements of policy or mission statements.
When asked about specific details the replies are often
about the 'wonderful' features that she would prefer to
discuss than the things on which people have asked for
clarification. Fuzzy, but always diplomatic responses.
And we have to admit that whenever anyone asks for an
opinion about Forth that Elizabeth is often the first
person to jump in with an ad for her products. There
is nothing wrong with that. But it is sad to see
people jump in to testify that she isn't usually the
first person to jump in with ads for her products when
people ask for recommendations. And no, I would not
expect her to list other Forths and claim that they
are 'equally good' as a starting point for newbies
now would I want her to do things like that.
Best Wishes
Alex McDonald
> But it is sad to see
> people jump in to testify that she isn't usually the
> first person to jump in with ads for her products when
> people ask for recommendations.
I can't understand why Elizabeth Rather alone gets this kind of
vilification. You need to present references for this pointless and
inaccurate observation; I haven't seen any testimonials to that effect
in this thread, nor in any others.
Perhaps you've misread. Or perhaps you're just "joining the mob" and
having a sly stab at an old adversary under cover of crypto_stonelock's
more direct rudeness.
The tenor of your post is just plain ungentlemanly, and you should know
better.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Richard Owlett
>>Simply put, I think your comment was out-of-place, inconsiderate and
>>just plain misleading. I don't care if you /meant/ it to sound this
>>way. The fact is that it does.
>
>
> I meant it exactly as said. As mentioned above, I will refrain from
> making such comments to newcomers in the future.
>
> Stonelock
>
u have problem seek competent care!
Julian V. Noble
>
> Hello,
> many years ago, I started programming in Forth with an Accorn an d an Apple
> II.
> Now I use Windows XP I would start again.
> Which Forth programming tool can you recommand to me ?
>
Have a look at
http://Galileo.phys.Virginia.EDU/classes/551.jvn.fall01/primer.htm
It is an ANS Forth primer oriented around Win32Forth, but usable with any
full-featured ANS-compatible Forth such as Gforth, SwiftForth or VFX Forth.
Take no notice of bad-mouthing re: Ms. Rather or anyone else. The vast
majority of this group are kind to newcomers. They are also relatively
disinterested, in the sense that if someone recommends something it is
because he or she thinks it will benefit you, not because they stand to
make a buck (or a Euro, for that matter ;-) .
--
Julian V. Noble
Professor Emeritus of Physics
j...@lessspamformother.virginia.edu
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~jvn/
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious
day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last
and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
--- H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Darin Johnson
> I can't understand why Elizabeth Rather alone gets this kind of
> vilification. You need to present references for this pointless and
> inaccurate observation; I haven't seen any testimonials to that effect
> in this thread, nor in any others.
I think that because she's the most visible member of the ANS Forth
committee and likes defending or rationalizing ANS Forth decisions,
that the people who dislike ANS focus on her.
It's somewhat interesting to me to notice that other language
newsgroups are often far more dogmatic about a system can or cannot be
called, and that despite occasional flareups in this group it is a lot
more open than most.
--
Darin Johnson
"Floyd here now!"
Jeff Fox
> Jeff Fox wrote:
>
> > But it is sad to see
> > people jump in to testify that she isn't usually the
> > first person to jump in with ads for her products when
> > people ask for recommendations.
>
> I can't understand why Elizabeth Rather alone gets
> this kind of vilification.
No vilification present. Simply the acknowledgment
that Elizabeth is often the first person to respond
to any question recommending a Forth. Even if she
hasn't commented for a while she is the first to
respond to questions about recommending a Forth.
Someone else commented on this, and I was just
acknowledging that we just saw an example of it
and that it is just what happens. There was no
vilification of Elizabeth present.
Perhaps you were refering to an attempt on your
part to vilify me for simply acknowleding that
Elizabeth is usually the first to suggest her
products when asked for recommendations and that
we all saw an example recently.
> You need to present references
References to how Elizabeth recently was the
first to respond to such a question? Most
people have sufficient attention span to remember
it as it was in the last couple of days. I
have given several references to anyone who
hasn't been reading c.l.f. I hope that satifies
your readers.
> for this pointless and inaccurate observation;
Sorry, I had a point, and my observation was
accurate. No need to descend into that sort
of behavior.
> I haven't seen any testimonials to that effect
> in this thread, nor in any others.
>
> Perhaps you've misread. Or perhaps you're just
> "joining the mob" and
Actually I was just confronting the mob with
the simple observation that someone else had
accurately observed that Elizabeth is quick to
offer recommendations for her products. As
a mod seemed to be forming to deny that this
happens I thought I would simply say that
we all know that it was a true statement.
No vilification intended. I was simply pointing
out that no one should be lynched for simply
makeing the observation that Elizabeth Rather
is often the first to offer recoommendations
for her products when anyone asks about choosing
a Forth.
> having a sly stab at an old adversary under
> cover of crypto_stonelock's
> more direct rudeness.
No more like, scoffing at the mob that lynch
mob offended by a simple observation that
Elizabeth does jump in quickly to promote
her products.
> The tenor of your post is just plain
> ungentlemanly, and you should know better.
Winnie the POOH to you too. ;-)
Best Wishes
Jeff Fox
c.l.f that he felt that his thisForth was better than Standard
Forth but that he had decided that it was better to stick to
Standard Forth. Whether thisForth was really better than ANS
Forth was not important to me but I was interested in the idea
that someone who felt that something was better than ANS Forth
also felt that it was better to go standard than with better than
standard.
It seems like a bit of a koan. I can understand that a
standard has a force of its own that might indeed make it
better in some ways than something that is better in other
ways but not standard. Except for Dilbert mission statements
excellence can't be standard. Things above and below the
standard can be excluded from the standard, at least a
standard standardizing common practice.
I suppose I think of part of Forth as the striving for
excellence. Does better mean technically better? Better
programmer productivity, fewer bugs, more efficient
designs? Does better mean economically better as in
sells more product? Does better mean happier programmers?
Does better mean smarter code or smarter marketing?
Does better mean more money for me? Does better mean
more knowledge of Forth for other people? Does better
mean more like C? Does better mean more average? I
guess that's better than below average and better for
those who don't like things above average.
I would say that it depends on the circumstances. And
it makes me wonder just when standard is better than
better than standard. One of the wonderful things
about unrestricted Forth is that it isn't boxed in
to having to define better a certain way. Have fun.
Best Wishes
Guy Macon
Jeff Fox wrote:
>Nonetheless, you are aware of repeated claims by prominent
>ANS Forth promoters that specific non-ANS Forths are simply
>not Forth at all.
That is not unreasonable. If PowerBASIC Inc. decides to call
their product "Forth" that wouldn't make it so.
>ANS Forth has often been used a line in the sand by which
>certain people's work and certain environments can be declared
>not Forth at all.
See above.
>The term Forth is used to mean ANS Forth by
>many people in this newsgroup. You know that.
And I use the term "car" to mean "Subaru." That does not imply
that I think that only Subarus are cars.
>denying that non-ANS Forths are Forth at all
Did you mean to switch from talking about some non-ANS Forths to
talking about all non-ANS Forths?
>and saying that people using non-ANS Forths should
>not call their work Forth
Is there anyone reading this who is willing to go on record as
saying that people using non-ANS Forths should not call their
work Forth?
Is there a Messge-ID where this was ever said?
>into the absurdism that you are not aware of anyone claiming
>that ANS Forth is the only Forth.
I am also not aware of anyone claiming that ANS Forth is the only
Forth. I have not seen any evidence of anyone here making such a
claim.
>Despite your smoke screen most people knew what John Doty
>was refering too. ANS Forth and Forth are not interchangable
>terms as many would like.
Car and Subaru are not interchangable terms either.
>It would be nice if some people would make a distiction between
>Forth and ANS Forth
Shpuld I make a distiction between cars and Subaru cars?
>instead of insisting that some non-ANS Forths simply aren't
>Forth at all.
Now you are back to using the word "some." Quite a different
claim.
Guy Macon
Jeff Fox wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> I believe that you are imagining this.
>
>It has been a while since I have read statements by ANS
>Forth proponents saying such things as 'colorforth isn't
>Forth, it is Forth like language.' But such repeated
>statements are history, not imagination.
>
>> ANSers and non-ANSers
>> tend to use "ANS Forth" when they are speaking *only* of ANS
>> Forths "[productname]Forth" when speaking of a particular Forth
>> (ANS or not) and "Forth" when speaking of either all Forths or
>> some subset of Forths to be determined by the context.
That is evidence of a claim that some non-ANS forths are not Forths.
I can find those too. Do you have any evidence of a claim that *all*
non-ANS forths are not Forths?
>It would be nice if ALL ANS Forth promoters would not
>deny that a number of outspoken ANS Forth promoters
>claim that non-ANS Forths are simply not Forth at all.
All non-ANS Forths or some non-ANS Forths?
>There are ANS Forth promoters who deny that other Forths
>are Forth at all,
All non-ANS Forths or some non-ANS Forths?
>Because there is little difference between saying that Forth
>means ANS Forth
Only ANS Forth?
>> "ANS Forth" is a subset of "Forth." I advise that you read posts
>> with this as your starting assumption.
>
>And I advise people who don't want to promote Forth biggotry
>to write such things as you wrote in above paragraph so that
>the innocent can read them and make that above assumption.
You are now accusing me of Forth biggotry? Evidence, please.
Guy Macon
Jeff Fox wrote:
>And we have to admit that whenever anyone asks for an
>opinion about Forth that Elizabeth is often the first
>person to jump in with an ad for her products.
This has not been my experience.
Guy Macon
Jeff Fox wrote:
>Actually I was just confronting the mob with
>As a mob seemed to be forming to deny
>No more like, scoffing at the mob that lynch
>mob offended by a simple observation
In my humble opinion, you are insulating yourself from the
much-needed feedback that comes from multiple people telling
you the same thing. It is insulting when you make the assumption
that I and others are too stupid to examine the evidence at
hand and to draw our own conclusions.
Ian Yellowley
Jeff Fox wrote:
> I recall a few years ago reading a statement by Wil Baden in
> c.l.f that he felt that his thisForth was better than Standard
> Forth but that he had decided that it was better to stick to
> Standard Forth. Whether thisForth was really better than ANS
> Forth was not important to me but I was interested in the idea
> that someone who felt that something was better than ANS Forth
> also felt that it was better to go standard than with better than
> standard.
I think you actually get to the crux of the issue..even if this is a troll.
We use a range of FORTHS.....some are ANS FORTHS where we have felt to
have a standard for outside work..so yes Swiftforth, IForth..pfe and....
In the early days we used LMI products almost exclusively so there are
legacy apps on 80c196 micros and pc's still running .
We also use and enjoy very small and interesting FORTH
implimentations...where they are embedded in the lab or perhaps a
product that only we (or like minded people) would play with....yes I
admit we have even a home brew forth...developed by a particular grad
student for a particular micro for a particular need.
>
> It seems like a bit of a koan. I can understand that a
> standard has a force of its own that might indeed make it
> better in some ways than something that is better in other
> ways but not standard. Except for Dilbert mission statements
> excellence can't be standard. Things above and below the
> standard can be excluded from the standard, at least a
> standard standardizing common practice.
Well if the spec includes life time costing I would expect that standard
is an advantage...either this or one makes sure that all the people who
enjoy writing FORTHS more than applications will be around for more than
a decade or so as we develop and extend products.
> I suppose I think of part of Forth as the striving for
> excellence. Does better mean technically better? Better
> programmer productivity, fewer bugs, more efficient
> designs? Does better mean economically better as in
> sells more product? Does better mean happier programmers?
> Does better mean smarter code or smarter marketing?
> Does better mean more money for me? Does better mean
> more knowledge of Forth for other people? Does better
> mean more like C? Does better mean more average? I
> guess that's better than below average and better for
> those who don't like things above average.
>
> I would say that it depends on the circumstances. And
> it makes me wonder just when standard is better than
> better than standard. One of the wonderful things
> about unrestricted Forth is that it isn't boxed in
> to having to define better a certain way. Have fun.
Exactly it is always more fun to hone the tool to the application.
If you only have one tool and you are a developer rather than a tool
maker which tool would you choose?
>
> Best Wishes
>
regards
Ian
as a ps I have to say that all major FORTH vendors have been very
helpful to me over the years..especially in terms of getting FORTH into
the lab and into the hands of students at extremely low
cost....(including manuals!!!)
Alex McDonald
> I recall a few years ago reading a statement by Wil Baden in
> c.l.f that he felt that his thisForth was better than Standard
> Forth but that he had decided that it was better to stick to
> Standard Forth. Whether thisForth was really better than ANS
> Forth was not important to me but I was interested in the idea
> that someone who felt that something was better than ANS Forth
> also felt that it was better to go standard than with better than
> standard.
Correction. Wil Baden said;
<< I no longer implement personal programming languages. (Well, hardly
ever.) In Forth Dimensions, I felt that the most useful thing I could
do for Forth was present portable Forth code. (If any of what I think
is portable is not portable, _please_ let me know.)
There are a few things in Standard (ANS) Forth that are not quite
right, and some things are missing.
There is a difference between personal programming language and
favorite definitions. The distinction is portability. >>
But he did not claim that "thisForth was better than Standard Forth but
that he had decided that it was better to stick to Standard Forth".
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&selm=B660120E.CFF8%25neilbawd%40earthlink.net.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
crypto_s...@hotmail.com
The same comment applies to you. The subset of observed factors can
vary from one person to another. It doesn't mean they are stupid or
that they can't analyse. It does mean they are not analysing by using
the same factors though. Doesn't it ring the uncertainty bell, seeing
that more than one person thinks the same thing, but opposite to what
you think. It can only mean a few things. Misunderstanding on either
part, Mob or nobody understands correctly. The last two last are the
least probable.
Regards
Stonelock
Krishna Myneni
> Hello,
> many years ago, I started programming in Forth with an Accorn an d an Apple
> II.
> Now I use Windows XP I would start again.
> Which Forth programming tool can you recommand to me ?
>
> Patrick
>
>
You may want to consider one of the multi-platform Forths
such as gforth, pfe, bigforth, iforth, kforth, etc. Unless
your aim is to do GUI programming on Windows only, these
other Forths will allow you to change operating systems
easily. Gforth for example builds in 64-bit mode on 64-bit
Linux systems, so you're not even tied to 32-bit programming
either. I would choose a Forth, free or commercial, which
is well documented to make it easy to learn. Also, take
a look at my presentation, "Introduction to Forth for
Scientists and Engineers", available in various formats
at
http://ccreweb.org/documents/programming/programming.html
Cheers,
Krishna Myneni
Darin Johnson
> Whether thisForth was really better than ANS
> Forth was not important to me but I was interested in the idea
> that someone who felt that something was better than ANS Forth
> also felt that it was better to go standard than with better than
> standard.
A long time ago I saw someone with a Tee-shirt that essentially said
"hurry up and finish the UNIX standard, so we can branch out again
with new research" (can't remember it exactly). As I understood the
sentiment, without the standard there was just a mishmash of competing
ideas, and the standard was going to be a meeting point. After that
research could start diverging again in new and different ways. The
difference was that there would be a point of reference, or a
checkpoint, or a baseline. And programs could be portable without
worrying about where the underlying system fit into its family tree.
In the future these paths might converge again, and repeat.
Similarly, if thisForth had diverged from the ANS standard, at least
one would be able to succinctly describe it as "ANS plus these
extensions and changes." You could have also looked at just those
differences and evaluated whether one approach or the other was
better, and possibly use these ideas in a future standard. If instead
some Forth was just created adhoc with no ties to any particular
standard, comparisons to other Forths would be difficult.
One thing that I think is somewhat intriguing, is that the mere
existence of a standard allows one to label things as non-standard.
That is, one can proudly proclaim that their system goes its own way,
serving as a warning to some (those who want portability), and as
encouragement to others (those who want to see novel ideas).
A standard is a measurement, but not necessarily a measurement of
quality or goodness.
Jeff Fox
Alex McDonald wrote:
> Jeff Fox wrote:
> > I recall a few years ago reading a statement by Wil Baden in
> > c.l.f that he felt that his thisForth was better than Standard
> > Forth but that he had decided that it was better to stick to
> > Standard Forth. Whether thisForth was really better than ANS
> > Forth was not important to me but I was interested in the idea
> > that someone who felt that something was better than ANS Forth
> > also felt that it was better to go standard than with better than
> > standard.
>
> Correction. Wil Baden said;
>
> << I no longer implement personal programming languages. (Well,
hardly
> ever.) In Forth Dimensions, I felt that the most useful thing I could
> do for Forth was present portable Forth code. (If any of what I think
> is portable is not portable, _please_ let me know.)
>
> There are a few things in Standard (ANS) Forth that are not quite
> right, and some things are missing.
>
> There is a difference between personal programming language and
> favorite definitions. The distinction is portability. >>
That is a nice clarification. I recall Wil explaining it as I
characterized in presentations that you did not see, but it is nice
to see a quote as to why he gave up using something that he had said
that he felt was superior to Standard Forth.
It does provide some explanation for the idea that what he called a
'personal programming language', even if he did say he felt that it was
superior to ANS Forth, was not his best choice. I believe that he also
stated that Marcel's iForth was an example of a personal programming
language.
I thought it was a rather arbitrary definition after I learned that
almost all the words that we had been told were 'portable ANS Forth'
code exclusively were in fact totally dependent on the existence
of things like the Mac Toolbox and system cut and paste buffer. I
failed to see how that code, though claimed for years to be totally
exclusively portable ANS Forth code, was substantially different than
what Marcel had done in interfacing iForth to an OS.
> But he did not claim that "thisForth was better than Standard Forth
but
> that he had decided that it was better to stick to Standard Forth".
Not in that quote he didn't. You are right about that. There are also
many other quotes that one can find that were not the statements to
which I refered. I was never able to follow many of his explanations
in c.l.f but was very pleased that he gave longer and more detailed
explanations of his code and opinions at Forth conferences and at
Forth meetings.
Best Wishes
Jeff Fox
> Similarly, if thisForth had diverged from the ANS standard, at least
> one would be able to succinctly describe it as "ANS plus these
> extensions and changes."
I am no expert on thisForth, but I think it predated Standard
Forth. I know it was one of the most unusual Forths that I ever
heard about.
> You could have also looked at just those
> differences and evaluated whether one approach or the other was
> better, and possibly use these ideas in a future standard.
I believe thisForth explored some interesting ideas. If I
were to compare thisForth to ANS Forth I am afraid I would
say that I would have to choose between the lessor of two
weavals. I would say ANS Forth was excessively complex and
abstract and sufficiently different than traditional Forth
to lose a lot a points. I would say that thisForth was the
most convoluted Forth I had ever heard of and the slowest
on every benchmark I ever saw it in. I would recall that
SV-FIG members were told by a former FIG President that
anyone who understood how thisForth worked deserved a
doctorate in computer science. While that might give
points for Forth for some it would lose points for Forth
from me. I wasn't using thisForth as an exmaple of what
ANS Forth needs in a future standard. ThisForth's
creator no doubt had other criteria for evaluation.
> If instead
> some Forth was just created adhoc with no ties to any particular
> standard, comparisons to other Forths would be difficult.
Comparing two things that are identical is a waste of time.
Some people object to comparing things that are different in
some way to evaluate the differences. But 'ties to standards'
and 'comparisons to other Forths' sound like very subjective
judgements.
> One thing that I think is somewhat intriguing, is that the mere
> existence of a standard allows one to label things as non-standard.
> That is, one can proudly proclaim that their system goes its own way,
> serving as a warning to some (those who want portability), and as
> encouragement to others (those who want to see novel ideas).
Yes a person can proudly label their work non-standard. The
term non-standard can also be used as perjoritave by those
promoting a standard. It is not unlike other uses of language
such as using the terms 'ANS Forth' and 'Modern Forth'
interchangeably.
> A standard is a measurement, but not necessarily a measurement of
> quality or goodness.
Yes. And a standard that restricts nothing from being
standard is a non-existent standard. A standard is a
distinction between what is and what isn't standard.
Best Wishes
Jeff Fox
> In my humble opinion, you are insulating yourself from the
> much-needed feedback that comes from multiple people telling
> you the same thing.
The fact is that I use the google interface to c.l.f so
I am almost never the first person to respond to a thread
or answer a question. Nonetheless it has been easy to
observer over the years that Elizabeth is almost always
the first to respond when people ask for recommendation
for a Forth to choose. That's not a comdenation, just
an observation.
When I see a 'newbie wants recommendation for what
Forth to choose' I expect to see Elizabeth be the first
responder as usual. We saw an example in this thread,
Elizabeth was first. At least that is what the google
archives indicate on the screen in front of me. I
belive it is true that once again Elizabeth was the
first person in c.l.f to respond to a request for a
recommendation for which Forth to use.
I don't care how many people repeat the false statement
that Elizabeth wasn't the first to respond on this
thread. She was. Just because multiple people repeat
an untruth doesn't mean that I should believe it.
> It is insulting when you make the assumption
> that I and others are too stupid to examine the evidence at
> hand and to draw our own conclusions.
I don't assume that you or anyone else who repeats the
false statement that Elizabeth wasn't the first responder
in this thread are too stupid to examine the obvious evidence.
If you or others can't admit that Elizabeth's name in this
thread shows that she was the first responder I would not
assume it was because of stupidity.
Best Wishes
andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid
Forth is a language. It is used for communicating with computers, but
it is also used for communicating with people. There have been many
instances in the past of people trying to regularize English, notably
Bernard Shaw's spelling reform. English orthography is a mess. But
if you want to publish something that many English-speaking people
will read, you use standard English.
Andrew.
Bernd Paysan
> Despite your smoke screen most people knew what John Doty
> was refering too. ANS Forth and Forth are not interchangable
> terms as many would like. It would be nice if some people would
> make a distiction between Forth and ANS Forth instead of
> insisting that some non-ANS Forths simply aren't Forth at all.
What I got from John's postings is the other way round. He thinks that ANS
Forth is not a Forth at all. Typical example: If you read Starting Forth,
the examples and the explained stuff won't work straight forward with an
ANS Forth. Nor won't it work with ColorForth (with even larger
differences). Does this make ANS Forth or ColorForth non-Forth systems? No.
Forth is not that narrow, and there is development.
I still think a Forth constitutes of these things:
* A data stack to pass parameters, and a return stack to store return
addresses, so that all "instructions" of the virtual machine can have zero
operands
* Definitions to extend the compiler
* A simple parser that parses words (space delimited entities), and compiles
or interprets them, depending on mode and flags (or, like STOIC, compiles
to words to fire-and-forget anonymous definitions and executes those after
compilation)
* A terminal interface for interactive communication with the computer
In this sense, PostScript is a Forth, too.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
Anton Ertl
>I still think a Forth constitutes of these things:
>
>* A data stack to pass parameters, and a return stack to store return
>addresses, so that all "instructions" of the virtual machine can have zero
>operands
>
>* Definitions to extend the compiler
>
>* A simple parser that parses words (space delimited entities), and compiles
>or interprets them, depending on mode and flags (or, like STOIC, compiles
>to words to fire-and-forget anonymous definitions and executes those after
>compilation)
>
>* A terminal interface for interactive communication with the computer
>
>In this sense, PostScript is a Forth, too.
Since Postscript is not usually seen as a Forth, I guess we should add
some additional criteria that all the Forths have, but Postscript does
not have. The most fundamental ones are:
- Postscript uses run-time type information for overloading resolution
and type checking, Forth does not. Hmm, that criterion probably will
evoke protests from Hans Bezemer (right?), but certainly the presence
or absence of this feature affects the programming style a lot.
- Forth uses compile-time binding of names (exception: EVALUATE),
Postscript uses run-time binding.
One other criterion, at least for me, is meta-programming, the
possibility to write Forth code that creates or manipulates Forth code
when it runs. I once said that I do not consider Holon a Forth
because of this.
- 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.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/ansforth/forth200x.html
ward mcfarland
> Forth is a language. It is used for communicating with computers, but
> it is also used for communicating with people. There have been many
> instances in the past of people trying to regularize English, notably
> Bernard Shaw's spelling reform. English orthography is a mess. But
> if you want to publish something that many English-speaking people
> will read, you use standard English.
the following is usually attributed to Charlie Indelicato, but whatever
its source, it certainly validates your point:
English is a Crazy Language
Let's face it -- English is a crazy language. There is no egg in
eggplant nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France.
Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat.
We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find
that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig
is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't
groce and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't
the plural of booth beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese?
One index, 2 indices?
Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend, that
you comb through annals of history but not a single annal? If you have a
bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you
call it?
If teachers taught, why didn't preacher praught? If a vegetarian eats
vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? If you wrote a letter, perhaps
you bote your tongue?
Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an
asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a
play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have
noses that run and feet that smell? Park on driveways and drive on
parkways?
How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and
wise guy are opposites? How can overlook and oversee be opposites, while
quite a lot and quite a few are alike? How can the weather be hot as
hell one day and cold as hell another.
Have you noticed that we talk about certain things only when they are
absent? Have you ever seen a horseful carriage or a strapful gown? Met a
sung hero or experienced requited love? Have you ever run into someone
who was combobulated, gruntled, ruly or peccable? And where are all
those people who ARE spring chickens or who would ACTUALLY hurt a fly?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your
house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by
filling it out and in which an alarm clock goes off by going on.
English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the
creativity of the human race (which, of course, isn't a race at all).
That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the
lights are out, they are invisible. And why, when I wind up my watch, I
start it, but when I wind up this essay, I end it.
Bernd Paysan
> Bernd Paysan <bernd....@gmx.de> writes:
>>In this sense, PostScript is a Forth, too.
>
> Since Postscript is not usually seen as a Forth, I guess we should add
> some additional criteria that all the Forths have, but Postscript does
> not have. The most fundamental ones are:
>
> - Postscript uses run-time type information for overloading resolution
> and type checking, Forth does not. Hmm, that criterion probably will
> evoke protests from Hans Bezemer (right?), but certainly the presence
> or absence of this feature affects the programming style a lot.
I can agree to that: untagged primitive data types are part of Forth - the
operation itself carries the information about the data type. That does not
mean an OOP Forth is not possible, it simply excludes the primitive data
types from becoming first class objects without wrappers.
> - Forth uses compile-time binding of names (exception: EVALUATE),
> Postscript uses run-time binding.
Also a correct discrimination. In the underlying structure, PostScript is
more a reverse polish Lisp.
> One other criterion, at least for me, is meta-programming, the
> possibility to write Forth code that creates or manipulates Forth code
> when it runs. I once said that I do not consider Holon a Forth
> because of this.
Most cross compiled Forth-like languages have that problem. Maybe it's
possible to describe Forth in layers:
* The bottom Layer is the virtual machine. It consists of data and return
stack at least, and zero-operand instructions. The machine model is that of
numbers in a 2^n (or 2^n-1 for hypothetical one's complement) ring, and
bitwise logic operations and shifts on that numbers. The machine also has a
memory, which is indexed with these numbers - the smallest memory element
can be smaller than a number (e.g. a byte). Herein is included that the
primitive data type (the number) is not tagged.
* The next layer is the compiler semantics: Dictionary with definitions to
extend the compiler, blank-delimited words to parse. The compiler semantics
include binding - early.
* The outer layer is the command interpreter, and the accessibility of the
compiler. This includes interactivity and meta-programming.
The semantics corresponding to these layers are interpretation, compile, and
run time semantics. The deviations to this model show how Forth develops
into different directions. STOIC and the likes compile the interpreted
stuff into anonymous definitions, allowing control structures (though the
typical use of a control structure during interpretation, like <flag>
IF : define things ; ELSE : define other things ; THEN isn't that easy
to do in STOIC ;-). ColorForth introduces several distinct spaces (which
change color) to direct the parser, instead of using flags like IMMEDIATE.
crypto_s...@hotmail.com
I think that thinking about Forth as being layers is misleading
because, as opposed to traditional layering ( where the outer layer can
only access the layer underlying it ), any "layer" can by accessed by
any other layer. This means we are not dealing with layers ( even
conceptually ) but more with reusable components.
Core component, Extended core component ( using Core ), Dicitionary
component ( using Core and Extended core ), etc.
At any level in the "layering", one can make reference to core words
like DUP. This very simple observation shatters the notion of layers.
Regards
Stonelock
m-coughlin
> Bernd Paysan <bernd....@gmx.de> writes:
> >I still think a Forth constitutes of these things:
[snip]
I'm going to snip out everything Anton and Bernd wrote about
this very tricky question. With Forth we start in the middle and
work our way up without a good foundation. The word "Forth" in
the context of computer programming has too many completely
different meanings. I don't even think Forth is a programming
language. It is a method of programming a computer. The term
"Forth" is the same sort of term as "object oriented
programming". After deciding to learn object oriented
programming, the student then has to select a programming
language that uses this method, such as C++, Java, Smalltalk,
etc. After deciding to learn Forth, the student has to select
from a confusingly diverse collection of programming languages
which are all named "Forth". Some of them are even object oriented.
--
Michael Coughlin m-cou...@comcast.com Cambridge, MA USA
m-coughlin
> Forth is a language. It is used for communicating with
> computers, but it is also used for communicating with people.
> There have been many instances in the past of people trying
> to regularize English, notably Bernard Shaw's spelling reform.
> English orthography is a mess. But if you want to publish
> something that many English-speaking people will read, you
> use standard English.
English has evolved over the centuries and exists as a large
body of illogically spelled written text as well as the speech
of large numbers of people. Forth is just starting out. Very few
people can or want to read Forth code. We still have the ability
to change the form of Forth and make it better. We also have the
possibility that Forth will die out with the current generation
of Forth programmers if it stays as difficult to learn to read
and write as English. There is no collection of Forth literature
that the next generation of programmers will want to learn to
read the way the next generation of human beings will want to
read English in spite of its chaotic spelling.
--
Michael Coughlin m-cou...@comcast.net Cambridge, MA USA
Jeff Fox
> What I got from John's postings is the other way
> round. He thinks that ANS Forth is not a Forth at all.
I realize that John Doty does not like ANS Forth and
thinks it went way too far in the opposite direction
from where he wanted to go. I realize that many other
people don't think Stoic is Forth either. But in this
case we weren't discussing whether ANS Forth is Forth,
or Stoic is Forth, but rather John's statement that
he wished that some ANS Forth proponents would not
pronounce that Forth means ANS Forth.
> Typical example: If you read Starting Forth,
> the examples and the explained stuff won't work
> straight forward with an
> ANS Forth. Nor won't it work with ColorForth
> (with even larger differences). Does this make
> ANS Forth or ColorForth non-Forth systems? No.
> Forth is not that narrow, and there is development.
I agree.
> I still think a Forth constitutes of these things:
>
> * A data stack to pass parameters, and a return stack to store return
> addresses, so that all "instructions" of the virtual machine can have
zero
> operands
That is a variation of the classic one line definition
of Forth, a language with a stack for parameter passing
called the parameter stack, and a second stack for
control flow nesting called the return stack.
Although Mr. Moore has said that the two stacks
concept is really there to support the more basic
concept, factoring everything as a word in a
dictionary. So although most people refer to Forth
with the classic definition above, focus on stacks,
and do more stack juggling than factoring.
I also supported Anton's suggestion that the one
thing that a new standard needs to do is meet the
classic one line definition of Forth. Of course
to me that means a real return stack, not a
second parameter stack accessible only by >R and R>.
I think the first thing an improved ANS Forth
would need would be to return to compliance with
the classic one line definition of Forth, two
stacks.
> * Definitions to extend the compiler
Yes. Extensibility is often used to describe
the nature of a semantic language that relies
on building new definitions from old and extending
the available semantics to solve a problem.
> * A simple parser that parses words
I would agree with that.
> (space delimited entities),
I would have agreed to that twenty years ago.
Today I no longer am confused about Forth needing
to be byte oriented and use an ascii space character
as a delimiter in source code. As Mr. Moore said,
Forth is word oriented and we should recognize that
and take advantage of that. Twenty years ago I
would have assumed a requirement for ascii
spaces in source code. Now I accept a more general
definition based on delimited words. I just accept
a more general definition for space delimited entities.
So I can agree as long as it doesn't mean ascii
spaces in files or anything too restrictiive like that.
> and compiles
> or interprets them, depending on mode and flags
> (or, like STOIC, compiles
> to words to fire-and-forget anonymous
> definitions and executes those after
> compilation)
Yes, ICE, Interpret, Compile, Execute. One way
or another.
> * A terminal interface for interactive communication
> with the computer
I suppose I had a narrow definition of terminal
years ago and would relax it today.
> In this sense, PostScript is a Forth, too.
I always cringed whenever I heard PostScript
being listed by the FIG President as an example
of the success of Forth. I always thought that
it gave the impression that Forth had declined
to such a degree that even prominent mainstream
Forth enthusiasts had to grasp at straws to find
anything vaugly resembling Forth to claim that
Forth wasn't dead. I always thought that to
most people hearing someone say that Postscript
is a Forth success story is about the same as
the person admitting that Forth died and that
there are no actual Forth success stories.
Whether Forth influenced Postscript is really
another subject that had been discussed before.
But I think it is harmful to Forth to try to
claim that Postscript is where Forth went.
I think it would better to provide references
to the real Forth sucess stories than to give
the impression that there aren't any by looking
despirate enough to say that Postscript is one.
Best Wishes
m-coughlin
>
> I recall a few years ago reading a statement by Wil Baden in
> c.l.f that he felt that his thisForth was better than Standard
> Forth but that he had decided that it was better to stick to
> Standard Forth. Whether thisForth was really better than ANS
> Forth was not important to me but I was interested in the idea
> that someone who felt that something was better than ANS Forth
> also felt that it was better to go standard than with better
> than standard.
Its easy to write a new Forth system that is better than
anybody else's because you pick your favorite things. You know
what you did and why you did it without having to read anybody
else's disorganized documentation or puzzle thru their cryptic
code. Having to create a system that other people will use is a
whole different job and much harder. A standard document with a
list of word definitions makes things much easier. Having other
people's tutorials and code examples cuts down on the work you
have to do even more.
> It seems like a bit of a koan. I can understand that a
> standard has a force of its own that might indeed make it
> better in some ways than something that is better in other
> ways but not standard. Except for Dilbert mission statements
> excellence can't be standard. Things above and below the
> standard can be excluded from the standard, at least a
> standard standardizing common practice.
>
> I suppose I think of part of Forth as the striving for
> excellence. Does better mean technically better? Better
> programmer productivity, fewer bugs, more efficient
> designs? Does better mean economically better as in
> sells more product? Does better mean happier programmers?
> Does better mean smarter code or smarter marketing?
> Does better mean more money for me? Does better mean
> more knowledge of Forth for other people? Does better
> mean more like C? Does better mean more average? I
> guess that's better than below average and better for
> those who don't like things above average.
>
> I would say that it depends on the circumstances. And
> it makes me wonder just when standard is better than
> better than standard. One of the wonderful things
> about unrestricted Forth is that it isn't boxed in
> to having to define better a certain way. Have fun.
I started posting to comp.lang.forth about the defects of
the ANS standard before it was finalized and approved, and have
continued since. In recent years, the discussion has drifted
around to the point where those who think the ANS standard is
harmful to Forth, such as myself, engage in long pointless
arguments while those who want to follow the standard write
documentation and development packages that both new as well as
experienced programmers might actually use to create Forth based
applications. When I try a new non-standard Forth version, it
usually doesn't work. If I had to write a Forth program today,
with a Forth system that I thought was simple and clear enough
to bother with, I'd have to use one that is ten or twenty years
old.
Excellence in the computer programming business must include
improvements in programming documentation. It is more fun to
create code that runs fast in a small amount of memory. Its no
fun for me to try to describe how my clever code works for other
programmers to understand very quickly and without having to
read many pages of text. But documentation is the area where
non-Forth programmers and technical writers beat the daylights
out of Forth programmers. I see some hope. Now we have Leo
Brodie's twenty year old book "Thinking Forth" on the web for
anyone to read. Maybe in another five or ten years there will be
a "Thinking Modern Forth" e-book. Will it be written for ANS
Forth or a new excellent non-standard version?
Jeff Fox
Mr. Moore said that the notion that code should
be layered like the ISO communication protocol
layers was flawed and that he didn't layer his
code but rather saw it as an integrated whole.
But I have seen other people write very layered
Forth code and it is pretty obvious that once
they get to high level layers they prefer high
level words to the simple primitives that Chuck
would use.
I noticed that Chuck's code looked almost the same
as far as the percentage of primitives at the end
of an application as at the beginning. Of course
because Forth is extensible there are a higher
percentage of defined words as more words are defined.
At iTV I often noticed that once code became 'high
level' that coders would often use high level
definitions that had taken pages of high level code
to write instead of using the simple primitives
obvious in their 'lower level code.' I would ask
why they used a high level definition that passes
dummy parameters to a word that goes through
pages of code to do what could have been done
a thousand times faster with a hundred times
less code. It seems that they were just
predisposted to use layered code and are focused
on the highest level code that they have written.
> as opposed to traditional layering ( where the
> outer layer can only access the layer underlying it ),
> any "layer" can by accessed by any other layer.
I think working with so much layered software
gets people into a layered software mindset.
Forth was designed to avoid this mad hierarchy
of functionality and provide a more holistic
environment.
> This means we are not dealing with layers ( even
> conceptually ) but more with reusable components.
I agree. But some people really do think layers
and some prefer to stick only to the most abstract,
'portable' and high level of abstraction as possible.
Everything they do is inexorably tied to the
practices of layering. The most obvious and
inflamatory example is the idea that there needs
to be an OS layer. From that there usually follows
the requirement for an OS interface layer, and
a primitive level, and a core level, and compiler
level, and a standard level, and standard tool
collection (library) level, and a standard framework
generation level, and version control level, etc.
And many people used to traditional layering see
the addition of higher level layers as a way of
hiding the ugly details of the lower levels as
they prefer to say high level. So it is very easy
to identify their high level code from code
written by people like Mr. Moore where the last
words they write have a similar percentage of
the most primitive words to the first code they
write.
> Core component, Extended core component ( using Core ), Dicitionary
> component ( using Core and Extended core ), etc.
>
> At any level in the "layering", one can make reference to core words
> like DUP. This very simple observation shatters the notion of layers.
There are plenty of other mechanisms that Forth
programmers use to add extra layers, public, private,
hidden, wordlists, oo, etc. All have their place and
all can be easily be used for layering abuse.
Best Wishes
andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid
> crypto_s...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I think that thinking about Forth as being
>> layers is misleading because, ...
> Mr. Moore said that the notion that code should
> be layered like the ISO communication protocol
> layers was flawed and that he didn't layer his
> code but rather saw it as an integrated whole.
This is true, and it's scarcely an unusual observation: as Van
Jacobsen put it, "Layered models are a very good way to design network
protocols, but a very poor way to implement them."
Andrew.
Jeff Fox
> After deciding to learn Forth, the student has to
> select from a confusingly diverse collection of
> programming languages which are all named "Forth".
Then their teacher has failed. Teachers select
the text books for students who know nothing yet
about a subject. If the students were all able
to select any textbook they wanted after
choosing to learn a subject of whey they knew
nothing how would they know which books to choose?
Self-taught Forthers who picked their educational
sources at random without some expert guidance,
especially on the web, will most likely only learn
how to duplicate someone else's errors without
even knowing they are errors.
It must be a confusing situtation for the self-
taught or those who compain that they can't find
any Forth educational materials at all. No wonder
they can't learn Forth. But it isn't that hard
to find a good teacher with well written high
quality proven educational materials and methods.
And there will always be some who will prefer
to curse the darkness than to turn on the light
and who will complain for years that no one can
see anything in the dark room that they are in.
Best Wishes
clvrmnky
> newsWanadoo wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>many years ago, I started programming in Forth with an Accorn an d an Apple
>>II.
>>Now I use Windows XP I would start again.
>>Which Forth programming tool can you recommand to me ?
>>
>>Patrick
>
>
>
> http://Galileo.phys.Virginia.EDU/classes/551.jvn.fall01/primer.htm
>
> It is an ANS Forth primer oriented around Win32Forth, but usable with any
> full-featured ANS-compatible Forth such as Gforth, SwiftForth or VFX Forth.
>
>
> Take no notice of bad-mouthing re: Ms. Rather or anyone else. The vast
> majority of this group are kind to newcomers. They are also relatively
> disinterested, in the sense that if someone recommends something it is
> because he or she thinks it will benefit you, not because they stand to
> make a buck (or a Euro, for that matter ;-) .
>
Well said, Mr. Noble. I wish my reply had been as polite and succinct.
John Doty
> What I got from John's postings is the other way round. He thinks that ANS
> Forth is not a Forth at all.
No. ANS Forth is certainly *a* Forth. It's just not the only one. And I
personally think it's a poor example of a Forth: kind of like a 100 kg
bicycle.
-jpd
Paul E. Bennett
> m-coughlin wrote:
>> After deciding to learn Forth, the student has to
>> select from a confusingly diverse collection of
>> programming languages which are all named "Forth".
>
> Then their teacher has failed. Teachers select
> the text books for students who know nothing yet
> about a subject. If the students were all able
> to select any textbook they wanted after
> choosing to learn a subject of whey they knew
> nothing how would they know which books to choose?
I would expect any student, having equipped himself with the reccommended
course book, to also look out for and aquire access to other books on the
subject to add to his broader knowledge of teh subject.
> Self-taught Forthers who picked their educational
> sources at random without some expert guidance,
> especially on the web, will most likely only learn
> how to duplicate someone else's errors without
> even knowing they are errors.
As someone who is entirely self taught in software engineering (I only had
the advantage that electronics was my study subject) I found that over the
ten years I was programming microprocessors in assemblers I was already
working towards a style that was very Forth-like. When someone handed me a
copy of Leo Brodie's Starting Forth I was quite amazed by the similarity
and the niceness of the approach. SF was a matter of about 6 hours to read
cover to cover for me and I took to Forth very rapidly after that (that was
in 1982). I had, however, been schooled in a proper engineering process
that I have, over the years, refined, simplified and improved. So, I do not
think that error duplication is a foregone conclusion.
> It must be a confusing situtation for the self-
> taught or those who compain that they can't find
> any Forth educational materials at all. No wonder
> they can't learn Forth. But it isn't that hard
> to find a good teacher with well written high
> quality proven educational materials and methods.
> And there will always be some who will prefer
> to curse the darkness than to turn on the light
> and who will complain for years that no one can
> see anything in the dark room that they are in.
I guess, like anything worthwhile in life, learning Forth does require a
little effort to be expended (whether finding a good tutorial, course or
book).
--
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett ....................<email://p...@amleth.demon.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy .....<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095
Going Forth Safely ....EBA. http://www.electric-boat-association.org.uk/
********************************************************************
Richard Owlett
>
> A standard is a measurement, but not necessarily a measurement of
> quality or goodness.
>
An analogy from living spoken languages.
Are dictionaries and grammars prescriptive or descriptive.
[ A favorite fight with English instructors is 'dangling participles'. ]
[ Or, for our liberal friends, 'potato' vs 'potatoe' ;]
[ Prescriptive grammarians would have fit over last fragment ;}
Paul E. Bennett
[--------%X-------Stuff about layers-------%X------]
> And many people used to traditional layering see
> the addition of higher level layers as a way of
> hiding the ugly details of the lower levels as
> they prefer to say high level. So it is very easy
> to identify their high level code from code
> written by people like Mr. Moore where the last
> words they write have a similar percentage of
> the most primitive words to the first code they
> write.
>
>> Core component, Extended core component ( using Core ), Dicitionary
>> component ( using Core and Extended core ), etc.
I think that, with Forth, the key word is "Component". Components have
surfaces and these surfaces can mate with other surfaces quite readily.
>> At any level in the "layering", one can make reference to core words
>> like DUP. This very simple observation shatters the notion of layers.
Occassionally you will require an adaptor component to ensure the fit of
the components is secure. Words like DUP and SWAP are such.
> There are plenty of other mechanisms that Forth
> programmers use to add extra layers, public, private,
> hidden, wordlists, oo, etc. All have their place and
> all can be easily be used for layering abuse.
I haven't yet thought of a good term of reference for such but when I do I
will let you know.
Richard Owlett
>
> Forth is a language. It is used for communicating with computers, but
> it is also used for communicating with people. There have been many
> instances in the past of people trying to regularize English, notably
> Bernard Shaw's spelling reform. English orthography is a mess. But
> if you want to publish something that many English-speaking people
> will read, you use standard English.
>
But which "standard English"?
Consider the following which have quite different meanings depending on
*which* "standard English".
1. Take the metal case of the valve to earth.
2. Place the bonnet in the boot.
3. Turn on the mains.
4. Suffer the little children.
Richard Owlett
Depends on whether or not that 100 kg includes a gas engine ;]
It would still be a *bi*cycle.
ANS Forth fits some needs.
100 kg 'bicycles' fit some needs.
Either could be completely irrelevant/useless/inappropriate/[better word].
Guy Macon
ward mcfarland wrote:
>English is a Crazy Language
"Wouldn't the sentence 'I want to put a hyphen between the words Fish
and And and And and Chips in my Fish-And-Chips sign' have been clearer
if quotation marks had been placed before Fish, and between Fish and
and, and and and And, and And and and, and and and And, and And and
and, and and and Chips, as well as after Chips?"
-Erik Oosterwal
Can you correctly punctuate the following, which has 12 "hads" in a row?
Ann where Bob had had had had had had had had had had had had written
next to it as a correction.
Answer:
Ann, where Bob had had "had," had had "had had." "Had had" had had "had"
written next to it as a correction. (Ann and Bob were taking a grammar exam.)
-Author Unknowm
Guy Macon
Richard Owlett wrote:
>[ Or, for our liberal friends, 'potato' vs 'potatoe' ;]
Guy Macon
Richard Owlett wrote:
>But which "standard English"?
>
>Consider the following which have quite different meanings depending on
>*which* "standard English".
>
>1. Take the metal case of the valve to earth.
>2. Place the bonnet in the boot.
>3. Turn on the mains.
>4. Suffer the little children.
5. Table this discussion.
John Doty
> John Doty wrote:
>
>
>>It's rarely claimed explicitly, but the words used by ANSers tend to
>>exclude other Forths.
>
>
> I believe that you are imagining this.
You snipped out my examples and then claimed I'm imagining things. Who
are you trying to convince? Certainly not me...
-jpd
Guy Macon
Jeff Fox wrote:
>I don't care how many people repeat the false statement
>that Elizabeth wasn't the first to respond on this
>thread. She was. Just because multiple people repeat
>an untruth doesn't mean that I should believe it.
Please go back and read what those people actually wrote,
now what they might possibly maybe could have meant assuming
given the most unfavorable possible interpetation.
>> It is insulting when you make the assumption
>> that I and others are too stupid to examine the evidence at
>> hand and to draw our own conclusions.
>
>I don't assume that you or anyone else who repeats the
>false statement that Elizabeth wasn't the first responder
>in this thread
Evidence please. Give me the Message-ID (or date and time or
exact quote) where I made any such claim. After you try and fail,
use Google to look up "Staw Man."
Darin Johnson
> In this sense, PostScript is a Forth, too.
Whereas most people would say it is not. It's definately
very very Forth-like though. If Pascal is not Modula-II,
and BCPL is not C, then perhaps Postscript is not Forth either.
"Forth" though stands out as being more than just a language,
and this is where the confusion and disputes may come from.
It is like Lisp, in that it is a style and methodology and a
family tree.
--
Darin Johnson
"Look here. There's a crop circle in my ficus!" -- The Tick
Darin Johnson
> I think working with so much layered software
> gets people into a layered software mindset.
> Forth was designed to avoid this mad hierarchy
> of functionality and provide a more holistic
> environment.
Layers can be porous, and often are, and a mindset will
prevent someone from looking down the layers when they
should. But sometimes layers do need to be impermeable,
for instance when the reason for the layer is for portability.
For example in a high level C++ GUI application there may
be many layers. But a programmer is certainly free to use
a low level memory copy functions (memcpy), while at the
same time it might be inappropriate to call a Windows
routine directly if the same code needs to run under UNIX.
Guy Macon
John Doty wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> John Doty wrote:
>>
>>>It's rarely claimed explicitly, but the words used by ANSers tend to
>>>exclude other Forths.
>>
>> I believe that you are imagining this.
>
>You snipped out my examples and then claimed I'm imagining things.
First you make a statement with qualifiers ("tend to" and "rarely
claimed explicitly"), I reply with a qualifier ("I believe that")
and now you imply that the examples you gave *do* make explicit
claims and that I claimed that you are imagining things instead
of saying that I believe that you are imagining things. I just
re-read your examples, and I don't see any words used by ANSers
that *actually do* exclude other Forths. Whether they *tend to*
is a judjement call - something that you see and I don't.
>Who are you trying to convince? Certainly not me...
Are you saying that you are immune to being convinced?
John Doty
> I just
> re-read your examples, and I don't see any words used by ANSers
> that *actually do* exclude other Forths. Whether they *tend to*
> is a judjement call - something that you see and I don't.
Then your mind is made up, and you refuse to see. When ANS Forth
materials are described as being about "modern" or "current" Forths,
that is misleading propaganda, whether intentional or not.
> Are you saying that you are immune to being convinced?
To convince me you must provide evidence. Since the actual evidence is
against your position, all you've posted is denial. That won't convince me.
-jpd
Guy Macon
John Doty wrote:
>When ANS Forth materials are described as being about "modern"
>or "current" Forths, that is misleading propaganda, whether
>intentional or not.
That's a different claim than when you wrote:
"its vendors and users like to pretend that it's the only Forth."
or when you wrote
"It's rarely claimed explicitly, but the words used by ANSers
tend to exclude other Forths."
When asked, nobody here agrees that ANS Forth is the only Forth.
If you dispute this, give me a name of someone who agrees.
Nobody here agrees has an example of anyone here claiming
that ANS Forth is the only Forth. If you dispute this,
give me a quotation of anyone making such a claim.
Nobody here has ever pretended that ANS Forth is the only Forth.
If you didpute this, give me an example.
As the person making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
Wolf Wejgaard
> One other criterion, at least for me, is meta-programming, the
> possibility to write Forth code that creates or manipulates Forth code
> when it runs. I once said that I do not consider Holon a Forth
> because of this.
This is interesting. Holon is basically an interactive umbilical
Forth cross-compiler similar to the cross-development systems
offered by several Forth vendors. Are you saying that the Forth
cross-compiler is not Forth, or do you relate to a particular
feature of Holon? Please specify.
Wolf Wejgaard
Bernd Paysan
> This is interesting. Holon is basically an interactive umbilical
> Forth cross-compiler similar to the cross-development systems
> offered by several Forth vendors. Are you saying that the Forth
> cross-compiler is not Forth, or do you relate to a particular
> feature of Holon? Please specify.
A Forth cross compiler is just that: A Forth cross compiler. It is a useful
tool, but it takes the compiler out of the application. This limits the
amount of things you can do.
A Forth cross compiler might allow meta-programming during compilation (the
host system does the meta thing). This reduces the pressure, sure. And not
all tasks require a full-blown Forth system.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
Andreas Kochenburger
A citation from the Standard foreword:
Forth is a language for direct communication between human beings and
machines. Using natural-language diction and machine-oriented syntax,
Forth provides an economical, productive environment for interactive
compilation and execution of programs. Forth also provides low-level
access to computer-controlled hardware, and the ability to extend the
language itself. This extensibility allows the language to be quickly
expanded and adapted to special needs and different hardware systems.
Everything said can be applied to most other computer languages as
well, eg. to C, with the exception of "the ability to extend the
language itself". If Holon can't be extended (which I don't know) then
it would not necessarily imply that Holon was not Forth. But it would
imply that an important characteristic was missing.
Cheers, Andreas
Albert van der Horst
m-coughlin <m-cou...@comcast.net> wrote:
>But documentation is the area where
>non-Forth programmers and technical writers beat the daylights
>out of Forth programmers.
I take this unqualified statement as a personal insult.
>--
>Michael Coughlin m-cou...@comcast.net Cambridge, MA USA
Groetjes Albert
--
Albert van der Horst,Oranjestr 8,3511 RA UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
One man-hour to invent,
One man-week to implement,
One lawyer-year to patent.
Albert van der Horst
ANS Forth isn't a Forth. It is an interface description,
that most Forth's comply with, more or less.
What do you say about ciforth (lina/wina)?
ciforth is *not* substantially more complicated than the
fig-Forth it derived from. 1)
Not in its implementation, and not in the number of words ; it fits on one
screen of 24x80. 2)
1) hope it is substantially cleaner.
2) Not quite, and that worries me.
I have rewritten manx (music notation program, ported from iforth)
in ciforth.
And ciasdis that I used to disassemble retroforth into a reassemblable
source, with names automatically generated for all its words.
I never missed those fat Forth features.
There is a slight convenience in e.g. iforth. D= D< D> D<= D>=
and DU= DU< DU> DU<= DU>= are all present.
Those thingies can be remembered, but most other things can't.
They might as well be absent, like having a CO2 welding equipment
in a shed 100 km's away, buried under heaps of wood, old tyres
and one burnt out '60 Volvo that you just might be able to fix,
one day. (And indeed, that day never came. I have a specific
example in mind.)
>-jpd
>
Groetjes Albert
--
John Doty
> John Doty wrote:
>
>
>>When ANS Forth materials are described as being about "modern"
>>or "current" Forths, that is misleading propaganda, whether
>>intentional or not.
>
>
> That's a different claim than when you wrote:
>
> "its vendors and users like to pretend that it's the only Forth."
The people in question could easily have made themselves clear by saying
"ANS Forth" instead of "Forth". They did not do so.
>
> or when you wrote
>
> "It's rarely claimed explicitly, but the words used by ANSers
> tend to exclude other Forths."
>
> When asked, nobody here agrees that ANS Forth is the only Forth.
> If you dispute this, give me a name of someone who agrees.
Oh, they have to admit to being either thoughtless or malevolent to be
considered so? I think it's probably more thoughtless than malevolent,
but in the vendors' cases it's certainly self-serving, concious or not.
> Nobody here agrees has an example of anyone here claiming
> that ANS Forth is the only Forth. If you dispute this,
> give me a quotation of anyone making such a claim.
>
> Nobody here has ever pretended that ANS Forth is the only Forth.
> If you didpute this, give me an example.
We use the word "pretend" in different ways. I mean "pretend" in the
sense of avoiding speaking of a fact one does not wish to acknowledge.
"Let's just pretend it never happened" doesn't mean you will lie of
asked directly.
I gave you examples of advice to a newbie that *implied* that ANS Forth
was the only modern Forth. It was misleading, whether intended or not.
If someone said "I want to lean about cars" and you gave the a Subaru
owners manual saying "This will teach you about cars" without making it
clear that there are many other kinds of cars, I think that would be
misleading. If you just happened to be a Subaru dealer, I think it would
be considered self serving. But it's really easy to avoid these
problems: "Here's the manual for a Subaru, the kind of car I drive" (or
sell).
I will repeat: would it kill you guys to use "ANS Forth" instead of
"Forth" when that's what you mean?
-jpd
Stephen Pelc
<m-cou...@comcast.net> wrote:
>documentation is the area where
>non-Forth programmers and technical writers beat the daylights
>out of Forth programmers.
Documentation is the area where SOME non-Forth programmers
and technical writers beat the daylights out of SOME Forth
programmers.
Same as for any programming language. I've read far too
much C code over the last few years to believe your
assertion. Every file of product and consultancy code
that has been released by MPE for the last few years
is documented with DocGen (a literate programming tool
in Forth). How many C/C++/Delphi/VB shops regularly use
Doxygen or other such tools?
Having just emerged from a rescue job where the previous
C-based consultants finally admitted that they couldn't
do the job, unfounded negative generalisations about Forth
are particularly unwelcome today. Especially when we lost
several days to bad documentation about software written
in C.
Stephen
--
Stephen Pelc, steph...@INVALID.mpeltd.demon.co.uk
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.mpeltd.demon.co.uk - free VFX Forth downloads
m-coughlin
>
> In article <421CAC98...@comcast.net>,
> m-coughlin <m-cou...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >But documentation is the area where
> >non-Forth programmers and technical writers beat the daylights
> >out of Forth programmers.
>
> I take this unqualified statement as a personal insult.
I have read some of the material you have published on your
web pages --
http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst/forthprojects.html
I expect that these are the early drafts of articles you will
publish in trade magazines and computer science journals, as
well as work in progress for a textbook to be sold in college
book stores. But until you are further along, I'm sorry to say,
I don't see much reason to change my above opinion.
crypto_s...@hotmail.com
Jeff Fox wrote:
> crypto_s...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I think that thinking about Forth as being
> > layers is misleading because, ...
>
> Mr. Moore said that the notion that code should
> be layered like the ISO communication protocol
> layers was flawed and that he didn't layer his
> code but rather saw it as an integrated whole.
> But I have seen other people write very layered
> Forth code and it is pretty obvious that once
> they get to high level layers they prefer high
> level words to the simple primitives that Chuck
> would use.
Agreed, because they put themselves in that state of mind. It doesn't
have to be that way. What happens ( and it often happens ) when the
underlying layer doesn't provide a certain functionnality that you
need, or provides it but is extremely slow for a reason X. Layer
thinking is extremely restrictive in the sense that it forces whoever
develops a layer to anticipate needs that higher level layers might
have ( Useless waste of time and energy ).
> I noticed that Chuck's code looked almost the same
> as far as the percentage of primitives at the end
> of an application as at the beginning. Of course
> because Forth is extensible there are a higher
> percentage of defined words as more words are defined.
>
> At iTV I often noticed that once code became 'high
> level' that coders would often use high level
> definitions that had taken pages of high level code
> to write instead of using the simple primitives
> obvious in their 'lower level code.' I would ask
> why they used a high level definition that passes
> dummy parameters to a word that goes through
> pages of code to do what could have been done
> a thousand times faster with a hundred times
> less code. It seems that they were just
> predisposted to use layered code and are focused
> on the highest level code that they have written.
Exactly! It is a state of mind, it doesn't have to be that way.
> > as opposed to traditional layering ( where the
> > outer layer can only access the layer underlying it ),
> > any "layer" can by accessed by any other layer.
>
> I think working with so much layered software
> gets people into a layered software mindset.
> Forth was designed to avoid this mad hierarchy
> of functionality and provide a more holistic
> environment.
The "Component" approach is much more flexible and doesn't seem to
offer any noticeable restrictions as opposed to the layering approach.
> > This means we are not dealing with layers ( even
> > conceptually ) but more with reusable components.
>
> I agree. But some people really do think layers
> and some prefer to stick only to the most abstract,
> 'portable' and high level of abstraction as possible.
It makes it so they become dependant on restrictions imposed by the
layer at their feet. Its a choice I suppose. I don't like to be
restricted by something somebody thought out wrongly, or by something
incomplete, or slow just because you don't have anything better to use.
> Everything they do is inexorably tied to the
> practices of layering. The most obvious and
> inflamatory example is the idea that there needs
> to be an OS layer. From that there usually follows
> the requirement for an OS interface layer, and
> a primitive level, and a core level, and compiler
> level, and a standard level, and standard tool
> collection (library) level, and a standard framework
> generation level, and version control level, etc.
>
> And many people used to traditional layering see
> the addition of higher level layers as a way of
> hiding the ugly details of the lower levels as
> they prefer to say high level. So it is very easy
> to identify their high level code from code
> written by people like Mr. Moore where the last
> words they write have a similar percentage of
> the most primitive words to the first code they
> write.
>
> > Core component, Extended core component ( using Core ), Dicitionary
> > component ( using Core and Extended core ), etc.
> >
> > At any level in the "layering", one can make reference to core
words
> > like DUP. This very simple observation shatters the notion of
layers.
>
> There are plenty of other mechanisms that Forth
> programmers use to add extra layers, public, private,
> hidden, wordlists, oo, etc. All have their place and
> all can be easily be used for layering abuse.
Hmmmm. OOP, public, hidden, private are part of the object oriented
paradigm with which the design is implanted. I'm not sure the way
things are designed can be mingled with the way things are implanted.
Although these concepts do add a certain layer to implementation of
code.
Regards
Stonelock
> Best Wishes
Bernd Paysan
> Same as for any programming language. I've read far too
> much C code over the last few years to believe your
> assertion. Every file of product and consultancy code
> that has been released by MPE for the last few years
> is documented with DocGen (a literate programming tool
> in Forth).
I went through Thinking Forth, and now am at Chapter 5, the coding style.
This includes documentation, and Stephen is on my list of interviewees,
anyway. So far, I've seen three different approaches:
* Gforth uses glossary entries. This puts the descriptive part into the
code, e.g.
: hash2 ( a b -- c )
\g hash2 merges @i{a} and @i{b} to a secure hash @i{c}, can be applied
\g repetitively for blocks of data.
dwurb swap dwurb 2dup worz rot worz swap worz ;
The documentation file contains prose and nodes where the glossary text is
inserted (together with the stack effect). The resulting document is a user
manual, i.e. an interface description, the prose does not have to follow
the implementation order, and the code is not part of the documentation. We
have several places in Gforth which emit glossary entries using different
techniques (due to different programming languages used).
* MPE's DocGen places documentation as comment between the code, but unlike
Gforth's glossary entries, that's the complete documentation. This has the
advantage that documentation and code are one file, and that not only use
is documented, but also the implementation details. The code also dictates
the "narrative" order. Unless there's something that allows to reorder the
code emitted by DocGen before feeding through LaTeX - that's the sort of
things I need to ask Stephen. Since LaTeX allows to \include files just as
well, the documentation can use that feature to have separate prose files,
which don't need to go into the source. DocGen also might have several
"views", e.g. a user manual view, which ignores parts of the documentation
text, and all the source code.
* noweb is a language-agnostic literate programming tool. Here, the source
code is generated out of the document file. The source itself is
rearranged, because noweb contains expansions (i.e. you name a block, and
you instantiate it). To do so, it contains a text macro expansion facility
(you define and instantiate texts, and you extract them to a file or to
several files). I've used noweb mostly for multi-language projects, since
the language-agnostic nature allows it to glue all the different files
together into one document.
The only thing I'd really like to have is an editor that knows about the
programming language in the programming language chunk of literate
programming, and about the typesetting language in the documentation chunk
- and displays the comment parts in a "what you see is what you mean" way.
Jeff Fox
Jeff Fox
> Evidence please.
I probably shouldn't respond to what is starting to look
like you are conducting an experiment in trooling, but
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and give you
a straight answer.
Google shows Elizabeth's repsonse as the first response
in this tread. What more evidence do you need. Sheesh,
why continue to insist that untruth is truth and demand
more proof that truth is truth? We have better things to do.
> Give me the Message-ID (or date and time or
> exact quote) where I made any such claim.
question "newsWnadoo" <fpatri...@sannadoo.fr> local time Sun feb 20
2005 7:14 AM
1ST response "Elizabeth D Rather: <erather...@forth.com> local time Sun
Feb 20 11:59 AM
2nd response Richard 12:13 pm
you didn't enter the thread until the next day do disagree
with Stonelock's statement that Elizabeth was patient, sometimes
helpful and always polite but not diplomatic.
I entered saying that she was so diplomatic that I have had
to ask some questions many many times go get an answer.
> After you try and fail,
> use Google to look up "Staw Man."
Now that your staw man arguement, that you needed proof
that Elizabeth was indeed the first reponsder, has been
put to rest let's hope you won't need me to go look up
more things for you on the internet.
Best Wishes
rickman
> Wolf Wejgaard wrote:
>
>>This is interesting. Holon is basically an interactive umbilical
>>Forth cross-compiler similar to the cross-development systems
>>offered by several Forth vendors. Are you saying that the Forth
>>cross-compiler is not Forth, or do you relate to a particular
>>feature of Holon? Please specify.
>
>
> A Forth cross compiler is just that: A Forth cross compiler. It is a useful
> tool, but it takes the compiler out of the application. This limits the
> amount of things you can do.
>
> A Forth cross compiler might allow meta-programming during compilation (the
> host system does the meta thing). This reduces the pressure, sure. And not
> all tasks require a full-blown Forth system.
I should have my head examined for getting into this conversation, but I
wanted to make one comment. A Forth cross compiler used in an umbilical
mode does not take the compiler out of the application, it just takes it
out of the target. My plan is to minimize the overhead on the target by
not supporting compilation on the target, but I will have full
capability when the target is connected to a host. To the user it is
not much different from using a terminal program. They will just have
to use *our* terminal program (the umbilical cross compiler).
Anton Ertl
Plain cross-compilers are not Forth, they are not even interactive.
Umbilical Forths are better, they are interactive, but they have a
hard compile-time/run-time barrier, and the meta-programming one can
do is still restricted (typically none at run-time, and at
compile-time there is a difference between meta-programming for
compile-time and meta-programming for run-time).
Once upon a time Jens Wilke did some work on integrating a kind of
emulator into Gforth's cross-compiler that allowed (if I understood it
correctly) to use the same (compile-time) meta-programs for
compile-time and run-time. Unfortunately this work did not reach a
releasable state, so cross is still a plain cross compiler.
As for Holon, AFAIK it has additional restrictions coming out of the
database-for-source-and-dictionary idea: There must be a 1-to-1
correspondence between source and executable code. No place for, say,
anonymous generated words (used widely in e.g., Gray); I am not even
sure how ordinary user-defined defining words fit in. If I
misunderstood this aspect of Holon, I am sure you will correct me.
- 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.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/ansforth/forth200x.html
Jeff Fox
>
> Its easy to write a new Forth system that is better than
> anybody else's because you pick your favorite things.
Better is certainly a value judgement, but your statement
sounds like a myth promoted by people who have never actually
written a Forth but heard it was easy. Lots of people have
written them and few claim that their's are actually better
than much else. Most people who wrote a Forth tend to make
apologies for it. People who have never written one tend
to think that they could easily write one that would be
better than anyone else's.
> I started posting to comp.lang.forth about the defects of
> the ANS standard before it was finalized and approved, and have
> continued since. In recent years, the discussion has drifted
> around to the point where those who think the ANS standard is
> harmful to Forth, such as myself, engage in long pointless
> arguments while those who want to follow the standard write
> documentation and development packages that both new as well as
> experienced programmers might actually use to create Forth based
> applications.
I usually agree with your description of the symptoms. And
some people think Elizabeth's contributions in her efforts
to ANSify Forth were the best thing that ever happened to
Forth and some think it was the worst thing that ever happened
to Forth. And that polarization tends to be much greater with
old-timers who have lots of evidence and reasons for their opinions
and are not very likely to change. And there are newbies who
jump in also with strong opinions about standard vs non-standard
issues based on experiences with things other than Forth.
The old timers often seem to appreciate the reasons that the
people on the other side of the arguement have for their
positions and while they may never agree with them they
acknowledge the seriousness and value of the point of view
of the other side. And then there are people who just like
joining in an arguement to get nasty and don't care about
whether there is any value to any opposing point of view
and of course lots of those in usenet.
> When I try a new non-standard Forth version, it
> usually doesn't work.
Sure, most new-Forth's whether claiming to be standard
or not don't work too well and don't have boxes or
much documentation etc.
> If I had to write a Forth program today,
Now that's scarry.
> with a Forth system that I thought was simple and clear enough
> to bother with, I'd have to use one that is ten or twenty years
> old.
Many people would be in the same boat, and some prefer
rather than lament, that their Forth follows quasi-standards
older than ANS. And on the opposite end are people who prefer
something not so antiquated as ANS.
> Excellence in the computer programming business must include
> improvements in programming documentation. It is more fun to
> create code that runs fast in a small amount of memory.
I agree. I can say that what I enjoy more is writing
good documentation explaining every detail of the
code, what is suppose to do, how it does it, why it does
it one way instead of another, etc. so that other people
can benefit, learn, and use the code as examples for futher
work. That's really fun. I also enjoy all the positive
feedback that I get that I write those docs very well and
make things very clear and look easy. I am told that I
do make it sound like takes less work than it does.
> Its no
> fun for me to try to describe how my clever code works for other
> programmers to understand very quickly and without having to
> read many pages of text.
Maybe that's one reason that you think that all Forth
programmers can't write documenation.
> But documentation is the area where
> non-Forth programmers and technical writers beat the daylights
> out of Forth programmers.
You are obviously speaking for yourself. This is absolutely
false for people who actually write Forth programs and
write documenation. We agree that you are not one of them.
> I see some hope. Now we have Leo
> Brodie's twenty year old book "Thinking Forth" on the web for
> anyone to read. Maybe in another five or ten years there
> will be a "Thinking Modern Forth" e-book.
> Will ...
maybe, if, maybe, if, if, maybe. I have no crystal ball.
I doubt if it would satisfy you because it couldn't be
modern and stick to stuff old enough to satisfy you from
what you say about what you like about Forth.
Best Wishes
Jeff Fox
>
> I would expect any student, having equipped himself with the
reccommended
> course book, to also look out for and aquire access to other books on
the
> subject to add to his broader knowledge of teh subject.
Yes. I worry more about the ones who haven't looked at either
the recommended course material or beyond it, or those who haven't
yet learned to read. Here in the US with over 50 million who
can't read and 150 million who have never read a complete book
we have a bigger problem with people who think that they are
qualified to select course materials before studying a subject.
> > Self-taught Forthers who picked their educational
> > sources at random without some expert guidance,
> > especially on the web, will most likely only learn
> > how to duplicate someone else's errors without
> > even knowing they are errors.
>
> As someone who is entirely self taught in software engineering (I
only had
> the advantage that electronics was my study subject) I found that
over the
> ten years I was programming microprocessors in assemblers I was
already
> working towards a style that was very Forth-like. When someone handed
me a
> copy of Leo Brodie's Starting Forth I was quite amazed by the
similarity
> and the niceness of the approach. SF was a matter of about 6 hours to
read
> cover to cover for me and I took to Forth very rapidly after that
(that was
> in 1982). I had, however, been schooled in a proper engineering
process
> that I have, over the years, refined, simplified and improved. So, I
do not
> think that error duplication is a foregone conclusion.
If you have the right background, you are already doing Forth like
stuff and take to Forth quickly. I felt I understood Forth after
about 20 minutes at the command interpreter of a Forth system.
I learned more from more expert Forthers in FIG. A decade later
I learned a lot more from some more senior and experienced Forth
professionals. Later I learned a lot more from the inventor of
Forth and have continued to learn about Forth through fifteen
years of work with him. So I have had self-taught, taught by
enthusiasts, taught by professionals, and taught by inventor
experiences. I learned more things and different things each time.
But I have also seen in many arts that as the art progresses there
become generations of teachers each teaching evolving tracks
going in slightly different directions depending on when the
teachers in each branch got their experience with the inventor
of the art. Most people learn from a teacher, who's teacher's
teacher's teacher's teacher's teacher's teacher's teacher had
direct exposure to the original art. With each generation of
passing some knowledge down the chains the paths diverge.
And as one of my teaches said, the first thing students will
always do is copy the bad habits of their teacher. When the
bad habits become part of the teaching and get passed down
to further generations of students they are not thought of
as bad habits in those schools. They are still considered
bad habits in other schools.
Since any bad habits are easier to learn than good habits
error duplication is pretty much a forgone conclusion. I guess
we can agree to disagree about that.
> > It must be a confusing situtation for the self-
> > taught or those who compain that they can't find
> > any Forth educational materials at all. No wonder
> > they can't learn Forth. But it isn't that hard
> > to find a good teacher with well written high
> > quality proven educational materials and methods.
> > And there will always be some who will prefer
> > to curse the darkness than to turn on the light
> > and who will complain for years that no one can
> > see anything in the dark room that they are in.
>
> I guess, like anything worthwhile in life, learning Forth does
require a
> little effort to be expended (whether finding a good tutorial, course
or
> book).
Like anything in life value will tend to follow effort, you will get
back only what you put in. Those who have the most casual contact
with Forth report casual benefits from its use. Those who have worked
harder report more gain, it's not free. Effort is required.
Best Wishes
Elizabeth D Rather
news:421A8515...@whispertel.LoseTheH.net...
> Jerry Avins wrote:
> > There are indeed many dialects of Forth, some common, some
>> formerly common, and some obscure. For my part, they're all Forth. If
>> you're claiming that ANS Forth isn't Forth, then I disagree with you. I'm
>> not aware of any claim that ANS Forth is the only Forth.
>
> It's rarely claimed explicitly, but the words used by ANSers tend to
>
> > There's a free evaluation version of our SwiftForth product for
> > Windows on
> > our web site, www.forth.com. It comes with extensive documentation in
> > form to help you with some of the issues with current Forths.
>
> Now SwiftForth is an ANS Forth: its docs are likely to be rather confusing
> if you're using some other Forth dialect.
The documentation included with SwiftForth includes the "SwiftForth
Reference Manual", which is definitely specific to this implementation (not
just ANS Forth issues, but the Windows interface, programming tools, and
product-specific libraries and extensions). It also includes the "Forth
Programmer's Handbook", which is much more generic. That book does cover
ANS Forth-specific features (specifically identified as such), but also
discusses at length issues that are common to all Forths that I know of
(e.g. stack management words, basic arithmetic, other basic issues) and
commonly-found extensions. This book is also available in a paperback form,
and we have received many favorable comments on it from people who are not
using our products.
> Then Richard followed up with:
>
> > She's evidently too bashful to mention _Forth Application Techniques_
> > at $19.95.
> > Although it emphasizes FORTH Inc. products, it's useful for any modern
> > FORTH.
>
> I'm sure it's useful with ANS Forth, but there are other modern Forths.
This book is even more generic than the Forth Programmer's Handbook, and I
know of quite a few people who are using it successfully with non-ANS
Forths. It does discuss many ANS Forth features, but always identifying
them as such.
> In addition, Andrew has asserted in an earlier thread that "Forth"
> unqualified means "ANS Forth": only references to other dialects need
> qualification.
>
> Would it kill you folks to write "ANS Forth" when that's what you mean?
> ANS Forth probably *is* what the original poster is after, but why write
> about it in a way that will mislead him into believing the only "current"
> or "modern" Forths are ANS?
Well, when I use the term "modern Forth" I mean Forths developed in the last
10 years or so. Many (but not all) of them are ANS Forth-compliant. But
"modern" also implies some consideration to recent implementation
strategies, such as compiling optimized code vs. ITC, user interfaces that
are similar to software running on contemporary platforms, etc. I would
certainly include colorForth as a "modern Forth" in that it includes some
innovative techniques that are interesting, even though it's far from ANS
Forth-compliant.
My primary reason for using such a term is to alert a person who has only
encountered mid-80's vintage Forths (or none at all, but who may have heard
rumors) that many things have changed in contemporary implementations, just
as contemporary C compilers (and those for other languages) have progressed
since their 80's antecedents. There has been a lot of innovation in Forth,
and if one is evaluating it one should be conscious of that.
I'm sure there are many people who first met Forth in the 80's and prefer
that style to modern Forths. That's fine, too. If you feel the innovations
are not valuable in your work, that's for you to determine. But I do think
a newcomer should be able to look at a variety of systems in order to make a
good decision.
As far as recommending FORTH, Inc. products: I do so not only because they
are what we sell, but also what I'm most familiar with. I think when
someone asks on a newsgroup for recommendations, it is a reasonable response
to offer what you have available and what you're familiar with. Whoever
responds probably has a favorite implementation, and should therefore
recommend it. Since there is a spectrum of implementors and users available
on c.l.f an inquiry is likely to get a nice variety of responses.
I doubt seriously if I am "always" first, although I do try to respond
promptly. I think Stephen beats me regularly, since he's in an earlier time
zone.
Cheers,
Elizabeth
--
==================================================
Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH
FORTH Inc. +1 310-491-3356
5155 W. Rosecrans Ave. #1018 Fax: +1 310-978-9454
Hawthorne, CA 90250
http://www.forth.com
"Forth-based products and Services for real-time
applications since 1973."
==================================================
Bernd Paysan
> I should have my head examined for getting into this conversation, but I
> wanted to make one comment. A Forth cross compiler used in an umbilical
> mode does not take the compiler out of the application, it just takes it
> out of the target. My plan is to minimize the overhead on the target by
> not supporting compilation on the target, but I will have full
> capability when the target is connected to a host. To the user it is
> not much different from using a terminal program. They will just have
> to use *our* terminal program (the umbilical cross compiler).
This all makes the assumption that the programmer is the only user of the
compiler and interactive features in a Forth system. This assumption is ok
for some applications, and not ok for others.
Example: My web server in Forth uses the text interpreter to interpret the
HTML commands. It uses both interpreter and compiler to run scripts. I've a
small wiki-like web publishing packet which does the same creative use of
Forth. Together with a server, this could be used to build a real wiki,
complete in Forth (this would require a bit security-hardening of the web
publishing part, though).
If you would create such a system using an umbilical compiler, how would you
do it?
I use umbilical systems when appropriate. They are ideal for small systems
where the developer is the only one to use the compiler. They are not ideal
for larger programs where the compiler is just another tool to be used.
"Don't bury your tools". Some of the programs that use the compiler may not
even be "large". My regexp compiler is just 160 lines long. A simple "grep"
utility written using that regexp compiler wouldn't be large, but it
wouldn't work without the compiler. And this regexp compiler produces about
10 times faster code than the pcre library.
Anton's gray parser generator is another example of a small program where
meta-programming is essential. And since it's a parser-generator, it's
second-order metaprogramming (when you use it, you do metaprogramming).
If you don't like layers or capabilities, what about belts? The white belt
of Forth is the data stack and operations on numbers (like a HP
calculator). And the black belt is using the compiler as part of the
application. Metaprogramming is a sharp and powerful tool, but what would
be martial art without sharp tools? Just hopping around, I guess.
Dick Gabriel (the "worse is better" guy) wrote an essay about
metaprogramming, in the Lisp context. He estimated that the example program
he gave (some dot-com system) could be classified in 1/4 meta-programming
and 3/4 programming. I don't know where he put the use of the
meta-programming parts, because when I write complex stuff in Forth, the
meta-programming itself is quite concentrated (some hundred lines
probably), and the rest makes use of these sharp and powerful tools.
The fact that I routinely use Forth as desktop calculator does not make the
other parts of Forth unnecessary. They are possibly a bloat on the desktop
calculator, though I don't want to be limited.
Guy Macon
Jeff Fox wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> Evidence please.
Please note the selective editing. I wrote "Evidence please.
Give me the Message-ID (or date and time or exact quote) where
I made any such claim."
>...Elizabeth's repsonse as...
I am not Elizabeth. I asked for evidence that *I* made such
a claim. Evasion noted.
>> Give me the Message-ID (or date and time or
>> exact quote) where I made any such claim.
>
>...question "newsWnadoo" <fpatri...@sannadoo.fr>... local time Sun feb 20
That's not a message ID of mine. Evasion noted.
>1ST response "Elizabeth D Rather:
I am still not Elizabeth. Evasion noted.
>2nd response Richard 12:13 pm
I am not Richard either. Evasion noted.
>you didn't enter the thread until the next day
Let's review, shall we? You wrote "...you or anyone else
who repeats the false statement that Elizabeth wasn't the
first responder in this thread..." You implied that I made
a false statement. I asked for evidence that I made a false
statement. You replied with a bunch of material written by
other peaole, and ducked the actual question I asked.
I expect you to now apologize for implying that I made a false
statement. Either that or provide some evidence that I did
make a false statement.
>> After you try and fail,
>> use Google to look up "Staw Man."
>
>Now that your staw man arguement, that you needed proof
>that Elizabeth was indeed the first reponsder
Evidence please. Give me the Message-ID (or date and time or
exact quote) where I made any such claim. Free clue: Evidence
that *I* made a claim would necessarily involve something that
*I* wrote. Please don't waste my time with things that other
people wrote.
After you try and fail to show that I asked for proof that
Elizabeth was the first reponder, add that to your failure to
show that I ever claimed that Elizabeth wasn't the first reponder,
then use Google to look up "Staw Man." Then apologize.
Bill Spight
> in this tread. What more evidence do you need. Sheesh,
> why continue to insist that untruth is truth and demand
> more proof that truth is truth? We have better things to do.
Indeed. Who cares when she responded? Time to move on.
Bill
Guy Macon
rickman wrote:
>A Forth cross compiler used in an umbilical
>mode does not take the compiler out of the application, it just takes it
>out of the target. My plan is to minimize the overhead on the target by
>not supporting compilation on the target, but I will have full
>capability when the target is connected to a host. To the user it is
>not much different from using a terminal program. They will just have
>to use *our* terminal program (the umbilical cross compiler).
To me, the key question is whether I can cut the umbilical after I have
fisnished writing the progran, cycle the poer on the target, and have
it run the program I wrote. If it does, it's a Forth compiler or a
Forth interpreter (Interpeter if the target generates the machine
language as it runs, Compiler if it runs machine language that was
created before run-time).
Guy Macon
I certainly don't. I haven't even formed an opinion on the matter,
nor am I inclined to waste the three minutes that it would take to
get a useless answer to a useless question.
> Time to move on.
I dislike it when someone puts words in my mouth, offers evidence
for what I *didn't* say, and then publicly accuses me of deception.
It in an insult and I take exception to it.
I will, of course, withdraw from the conversation if the person
making the false accusations shows an unwillingness to admit that
he has, in fact, utterly failed to provide any evidence that I
ever wrote what he claims I wrote. No sense beating a dead horse.
In a lifetime of working with engineers and programmers I have seen
this sort of behavior many, many times. I confront the behavior
once or perhaps twice and then simply refuse to respond to it.
Guy Macon
Anton Ertl wrote:
>Plain cross-compilers are not Forth, they are not even interactive.
I am puzzled by the above. When I write a program in Forth, compile
it for a 4-bit processor with 64 nybbles or RAM and then burn it into
ROM so that it controls a toy, it isn't interactive but it sure seems
to be Forth. Am I using the wrong terminology?
Elizabeth D Rather
news:111sn99...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> rickman wrote:
>
>>A Forth cross compiler used in an umbilical
>>mode does not take the compiler out of the application, it just takes it
>>out of the target. My plan is to minimize the overhead on the target by
>>not supporting compilation on the target, but I will have full
>>capability when the target is connected to a host. To the user it is
>>not much different from using a terminal program. They will just have
>>to use *our* terminal program (the umbilical cross compiler).
That is a good description. It is often true that an embedded target does
not need the full power of Forth for its users, and can't afford the
resources a full Forth would occupy, but the developer should be able to
have it all during the development process. That's where an umbilical host
comes in. In addition, it's possible to have a much more powerful compiler
(e.g. capable of generating optimized code, with more error checking and
debugging tools) on a separate host.
We also offer an optional target-resident interpreter/compiler which is
rather stripped down, but does offer interactive Forth as a convenience for
things like setting parameters or typing in simple diagnostic definitions.
> To me, the key question is whether I can cut the umbilical after I have
> fisnished writing the progran, cycle the poer on the target, and have
> it run the program I wrote. If it does, it's a Forth compiler or a
> Forth interpreter (Interpeter if the target generates the machine
> language as it runs, Compiler if it runs machine language that was
> created before run-time).
Hmm, I'm familiar with the term "Forth interpreter" referring to that which
processes text from a command line or file, but have never encountered a
Forth that "generates the machine language as it runs." Do you have an
example?
Guy Macon
Elizabeth D Rather wrote:
>
>Hmm, I'm familiar with the term "Forth interpreter" referring to that which
>processes text from a command line or file, but have never encountered a
>Forth that "generates the machine language as it runs." Do you have an
>example?
Same thing. I just worded it really poorly. The machine language
is, of course, already there in the interpeter code. Sorry for
being unclear.
Darin Johnson
> Plain cross-compilers are not Forth, they are not even interactive.
They can create Forth applications from Forth code though.
--
Darin Johnson
"Floyd here now!"