HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exuhag@exu.ericsson.se (James Hague)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Sampler Forth
Date: 10 Sep 92 14:22:41 GMT
Reply-To: exuhag@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson, TX

Excellent post, Alan, which hit the nail right on the head.

I agree that most Forth implementations are severely misguided.
(I am not talking about Forths for embedded use here, but Forth
as a general purpose programming language.)  I'm of the "Forth
should be small and understandable" school, but this doesn't
mean that a Forth system has to be as rickety as the Apple II
ML monitor.

Speed *is* overrated.  It is mostly a psychological thing; people
for some reason, no matter how fast their processor may be, hang
on to the same misconceptions:  BASIC is slow, LISP is slow, C is
super-fast. etc.  And they are willing to trade convenience and
ease-of-use for every extra bit of speed.  Indirect-threaded FIG
Forth on a 6502 was a very usable system--much faster than interpreted
BASIC.  Yet on an 80386 it isn't fast enough and we have to resort
to all sorts of fancy inline code schemes.

I'd like to see the following features in a Forth implementation
(I do most of my non-work programming under MS-DOS, so keep this
in mind):

     * Crashproof (FORTHMACS does this, so I hear).  You shouldn't
       be able to type a word from the keyboard and bring down the
       whole system.

     * An editor which is well-integrated into the system and takes
       advantage of available features:  color, arrow keys for cursor
       motion, etc.  I don't consider loading an external editor to
       be good integration.  It doesn't need to be fancy, just _solid_.

     * A better alternative to FORGET.  There's no reason any more to
       stick to the old linear dictionary model, IMO.  All you want to
       do is create and delete words.  Use the heap.

     * One-key meta or true compilation.  The resulting executables should
       be as small as possible.  I can't stand 150K "hello world" programs.

     * A nice environment, something more than just being able to
       enter Forth words.  Use the up/down arrows to scroll through
       a history list.  Have a pop-up window to let you visually select
       files.  Tab for filename completion.  A DOS shell.

     * Ability to switch between environment screen and screen of running
       program.  Graphics settings and such are automatically saved without
       hassle.

These are the sort of things I would expect from a modern Forth
implementation.  I think you could get everything listed above into
a 50K exectuable without any problems.  I don't see many problems with
Forth itself (i.e. RPN, etc.), just the usual programming environment.

--
James Hague   
exuhag@exu.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Forth compilers/C generators?
From: comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:11:07 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Can anyone point me to a reference or good sample source code of a Forth
compiler?  What I really am interested in is a Forth compiler that would
generate C code rather than assembler or machine code for a particular
machine.  I am using TILE Forth and any compiler ought to preserve its
machine-independence.

In any case, I would like to see source for a Forth compiler, and even
better a published book about one.  If anyone knows of such a thing.

Thanks.

jj

John Thayer Jensen                      64 9 373 7599 ext. 7543
Commerce Computer Services              64 9 373 7437 (FAX)
Auckland University                     jt.jensen@aukuni.ac.nz
Private Bag 92019
AUCKLAND
New Zealand
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: kormann@watson.bms.com (JOSEPH KORMANN (X3167 LAWRENCEVILLE))
Subject: AI in Forth
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Bristol Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:13:00 GMT

Hi. I'm most likely to be flamed out of my mind for this one but:

    What does anyone think of the (as I see it) the natural ability to adapt 
Forth to AI? Being it's the only bottom-up language that I know of and it's 
the only language that's built to be self-referencing, it seems like a logical 
selection to me. (or am I barking up the wrong binary-tree?)

    All responses are welcome.

Thanks.
Joseph (undergrad at Trenton State College)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: martym@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (martin.mcgowan)
Subject: Re: Free Forth
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 03:14:40 GMT

  Trying again,
>>Is there ANYONE who believes that Forth, ANSI or no, will attain
>>the popularity that C has?

 No, but I have a personal goal of 1% as many Forth as C Programmers.

 This only means I've got to find, recruit, convert or discover 
5 forth programmers  to meet my quota.
-- Marty McGowan, AT&T BL, Whippany, NJ,  mcg@whamg.att.com
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: ANS TC Magnet for ROMability
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:46:05 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 10,  Topic 22
Message 87        Sun Sep 13, 1992
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 08:36 EDT
 
> The first step in standardising cross compilers should be to write
 > a clear explanation of how a cross compiler works and publish code
 > that does it in an efficient manner.  We will know the code is good
 > when it gets copied into various new Forth systems.

Sorry, I have to disagree with this.  This seems to be saying that we should
have one cross-compiler, period....which would by default be standard!  I'd
rather see variety in cross-compiler approaches.

Re. the published explanation & code, I'm told my article on the subject is
now appearing in Forth Dimensions.  As to whether it is clear or efficient, I
can't say.

This article describes a "traditional" (no flames, please!) Forth
metacompiler, which "borrows" the dictionary search & some other mechanisms
from the host Forth.  This may be a common way to do metacompilers, but it's
certainly not the only way!

I haven't used the LMI cross-compiler, but I know it works differently (a two
pass compiler), and I've heard great things about it.  I also haven't used
TCOM yet.  I _have_ used the Pygmy re- compiler and I find it quite elegant,
and much simpler than my cross- compiler.  Just say *YES* to continued
compiler experimentation!

BTW, I think Stephen Pelc has devised a useful nomenclature for metacompilers:
a "cross-compiler" can produce code for a different CPU.  A "recompiler" --
e.g. Pygmy -- can simply regenerate the kernel for the host CPU; it can't
produce code for a new CPU.
 I think "metacompiler" is the general class.  (Please correct me if I'm
wrong, Stephen.)

Brad Rodriguez
 B.RODRIGUEZ2 on GEnie   |   bradford@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca
 So many projects....so little time.

-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
From: uho@informatik.uni-kiel.dbp.de (Ulrich Hoffmann)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Sampler Forth
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:51:13 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Kiel, FRG

In <4303@wet.UUCP> jpeters@wet.COM (John A. Peters) writes:

>DOCUMENTATION; Use the resources of the machine!  The compiler
>doesn't do anything with numbers above 127, so use control-C to
>toggle the high-order bits to 1 and all incoming bytes are 128 or
>above and are ignored by the compiler.  They can be used for
>comments.  On the screen they're dimmer; the printer outputs then
>as italics. I (Jerry Mueler) did all this a couple of years a go. 
>Type control-C again and you're back into normal forth input.

So you probably don't speak any foreign languages? 

7 Bit Ascii is just not enough to hold all our native (you may call them foreign)
characters (such as German Umlauts). 

Unfortunately even this mail software insists on using only 7 bits, 
so I can't show you any of these, now.

Yes - we use these letters!  
Yes - we have special keys on our keyboards to produce them.

Please DO NOT use the extended ASCII character set for any other purpose than 
representing literal characters!

In this sense, a 'smudge' bit becomes really nasty, since not FIG, nor F83/F-PC
allow for full 8-Bit characters in word names :-(.


Greetings,
         


   Ulrich

Ulrich Hoffmann                   email: uh@informatik.uni-kiel.dbp.de  
Institut fuer Informatik, Universitaet Kiel        Tel: +49 431 560426 
Preusserstr 1-9, D-2300 Kiel 1, Germany            Fax: +49 431 566143
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: An Open ANSI Forth Implementation
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:52:10 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

In article <4043.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
	B.DUNN5 [Brian] writes:
+You public domain Forth implementers: let's agree on something more than DUP. 
+Let's have portable structures to catch up with C, and portable windows to
+perhaps pass them.  All we have to do is agree.

+You vendors: give us something we can't make ourselves in our spare time. Give
+us something which can make our machines smoke along in full color, stereo, FP
+copro'ed, MMU controlled, multiwindowed, AI driven glory.

+As was quoted previously:
+ > Or maybe I'm just naive.

I agree with the aricle you posted, esp. the parts quoted above.

It seems to me that Forth's popularity/success/etc. has more to do with
Political/Social/Pyschological issues than with technical details (though
there are interconnections).  If those goals are naive, then count me in the
naive-but-hopeful column.

-Doug
---
Preferred:  dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us	Ok:  {pitt,sei}!willett!dwp
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: An Open ANSI Forth Implementation
Date: 6 Sep 92 13:07:29 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 10,  Topic 41
Message 78        Sat Sep 05, 1992
JETHOMAS                     at 19:35 EDT
 
Interesting.  We have people who say we shouldn't have an ANSI standard, or at
least not this ANSI standard.  They say it's just a bad idea and they're
against it. 

And now we have people who say we shouldn't have a free ANSI Forth.  They're
against it.  In both cases, it isn't clear to me what can be gained.  If you
tell people not to have an ANSI standard, they'll go ahead and do it anyway. 
And if you tell people not to make public-domain Forths, they'll go ahead and
do that too. 

We have 2 objections to free Forths.  One is that they'll be so bad they'll
give Forth a bad name.  The other is that they'll be so good they'll give
vendors a hard time.  Both objections made simultaneously. 

But there's no contradiction there.  We can have bad free forths and better
free forths at the same time.  The worst of both worlds. 

Well, other things equal, I'd go for problem 2.  If a good public domain ANSI
Forth comes out quickly and gets distributed fast enough, it could inhibit a
lot of bad Forths.  And the people who'd otherwise be writing them might write
portable applications instead.  So, since it's going to happen anyway, why not
encourage the best public-domain Forth we can get?  If the good guys are
successfully discouraged, we'll still have the incompetents writing Forths. 
But the other way around, the good Forths will help discourage the bad ones
for us.  We can at least get some help on one side of the dilemma. 
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: eForth
Date: 7 Sep 92 12:46:27 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 7,  Topic 17
Message 58        Mon Sep 07, 1992
F.SERGEANT [Frank]           at 01:40 EDT
 
  B.R. Mentink asks about adding some words to eFORTH for the H8.
     I hate to see you post your pleas for help and never get a response, so I
thought I write even though eforth is not my main area of interest (I'm a
Pygmy enthusiast).
     Are you a member of F.I.G. (P.O. Box 2154 Oakland, CA  94621, phone 
(510) 893-6784)?  At least you should contact them for their list of 
publications.  _All About Forth_ 3rd ed. by Glen Haydon would probably  give
you a good start on implementing the extra words yourself.  Also, I suppose
you have it, but if not FIG also sells an _eForth Implementation Guide_.
     Good luck.
 P.S.
     I tried sending email directly to you at MENTINK@WRONZ.ORG.NZ using the
gmail mail handler at the local university.  Apparently they  are set up for
bitnet but also generally know how to route messages  to internet addresses. 
I gather your address is a usenet address. Just for my general education do
you (or anyone else reading this)  know how I should have gone about sending
email directly?  My address is  fs07675@swtexas  in case you want to try
sending from your end.
  -- Frank Sergeant
 So many projects....so many interruptions.
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Southern Ontario FIG
Date: 30 Aug 92 11:21:44 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 8,  Topic 23
Message 19        Sat Aug 29, 1992
N.SOLNTSEFF                  at 10:33 EDT
 
 MEETING
     SATURDAY  SEPTEMBER 19  1992
     2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
     McMaster University
     General Sciences Building
     Room 417

 PROGRAMME
     2:00 - 3:00 * Conversazione
     3:00 - 3:15 * Business Meeting
     3:15 - 4.15 * Talk

       FORTH MULTITASKING IN A NUTSHELL
       by Brad Rodriguez
       T-Recursive Technology

       Multitasking in Forth is very simple, incredibly powerful
       and widely misunderstood.  This talk will describe what
       multitasking can do, and when it can be profitably used.
       The most common Forth multitasker -- the cooperative,
       round-robin model -- will be explored in general terms.
       Example code will be given for F83, which will be used
       to illustrate how to create and control parallel tasks,
       protect shared resources with semaphores, and pass
       messages between tasks.  Preemptive and prioritized
       multi taskers will be mentioned briefly

     4:15 - 5:15 * Conversazione

 For more information call
     Dr. Nicholas Solntseff
     Department of C.Sc. & Systems
     McMaster University
     Hamilton  Ontario  L8S 4K1
     (416) 525-9140  Ext. 3443

 1992/1993 Schedule
     december 5 -- march 6 -- june 12 -- september 11

-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Martin Ertl)
Subject: Re: Forth will Replace C
Organization: Institut fuer Computersprachen, Technische Universitaet Wien
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:50:43 GMT

In article <dak.716053287@kaa>, dak@kaa.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup) writes:
|> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Martin Ertl) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Sep5.150256.17881@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, mikc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mike Coughlin) writes:
|> >|>  I do think that Forth will
|> >|> attain the popularity of C.
|> > 
|> >It will even surpass the popularity of C. This will happen as soon as
|> >99% of the C programmers will have switched to C++ :-\
|> 
|> Forget it. Forth is one-upmanship (whatever that is supposed to mean).
|> There is no such thing as independent modules etc. Sideeffects between
|> modules because of naming differences cannot be avoided. Implementation
|> issues (cross-compilers) keep creeping into your source code.

Can you say VOCABULARY^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Wordlist? I knew you could.
Vocabularies can be nested, which gives you better control over name
visibility than C's static/extern scheme. And C's scheme has not
kept it from being used in large projects.

Also, your argument is beside the point: If everybody switches from C
to C++, Forth will someday be more popular than C.

|> The most efficient methods are only employed by a very small number of
|> people. If you want to use their efforts, you have to use libraries.
|> And Forth (=source code) libraries are more difficult to employ because
|> of word conflicts etc. Besides, their is no load-on-demand-feature
|> for library modules (= linking), resulting in massively dead code.

You are in for a surprise, when object-oriented methods become more
widespread. And already now you get most of libc.a when you use printf.

|> Forth projects cannot be understood on a module to module level, if
|> you use the languages abilities, because not even the syntax is fixed
|> and can be relied on.

Macros in e.g. C work the same way. Many people have recognized that a
language cannot force good programming. Therefore most shops have
developed programming conventions to avoid the problems you mention,
and some of them are often written down as policy. "Thinking Forth"
gives guidelines for Forth (althogh I disagree with some of the
recommendations).

BTW, how about an obfuscated Forth contest?

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl                    Some things have to be seen to be believed
anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: dak@kaa.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup)
Subject: Re: Forth will Replace C
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik  /  RWTH Aachen
Date:  9 Sep 92 15:41:27 GMT

anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Martin Ertl) writes:

>In article <1992Sep5.150256.17881@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, mikc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mike Coughlin) writes:
>|>  I do think that Forth will
>|> attain the popularity of C.
> 
>It will even surpass the popularity of C. This will happen as soon as
>99% of the C programmers will have switched to C++ :-\

Forget it. Forth is one-upmanship (whatever that is supposed to mean).
There is no such thing as independent modules etc. Sideeffects between
modules because of naming differences cannot be avoided. Implementation
issues (cross-compilers) keep creeping into your source code.

Forth is a language for people who know what they are doing. And projects
tend to become so complicated that you HAVE to split the work, which
results in you NOT knowing everything.

The most efficient methods are only employed by a very small number of
people. If you want to use their efforts, you have to use libraries.
And Forth (=source code) libraries are more difficult to employ because
of word conflicts etc. Besides, their is no load-on-demand-feature
for library modules (= linking), resulting in massively dead code.

Forth projects cannot be understood on a module to module level, if
you use the languages abilities, because not even the syntax is fixed
and can be relied on.

For tasks too large to be done by one man (or a small team COMMUNICATING)
Forth does not yet present a considerable option.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: int452w@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Michael R. Geddes)
Subject: CMOS 87c51 chip.. request for Meta-compiler.
Keywords: request,87c51
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:17:27 GMT

Does anyone know of a PD or comercial ( < AUS$1000 ) Forth metacompiler for
the 87c51 chip (Intel I think).  Any information would be appreciated including how I could obtain it. 
I guess just an assembler could be useable, though not quite as useful.
I don't want any bells and whistles.. it is for an embeded controller, I can
code up whatever links I need to the host PC. 

Michael Geddes
-- 
Michael Geddes                         int452w@linblat.cc.monash.edu.au 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A blink, I think, is the same as a wink, But a blink is a wink that grew.
For a wink you blink with one eye, and a blink you wink with two.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: "crssysop jud" <crssysop.jud@canrem.com>
Subject: test
Reply-To: "crssysop jud" <crssysop.jud@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: comp
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:56:48 EST

If this message gets out, I apologize...

Jud
Sysop
CanRem
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario, Canadas
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Forth will Replace C
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:07:04 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

In article <H.ObNgwWGJVLo@harvee.billerica.ma.us>
	esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us (Eric S Johansson) writes:
+In <4052.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>, Doug Philips writes:
+>But I like the idea of the contest.  Would you want to restrict it to a
+>particular dialect of Forth?

+YES! ANS forth! :-)

How did I know?  Course ANS Forth doesn't exist... not just yet anyway.
That doesn't mean we can't start to talk about what the contest might involve.

How about a sponsor (FIG  SigForth/ACM  FORML  Corporate  Combination)?

-Doug
---
Preferred:  dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us	Ok:  {pitt,sei}!willett!dwp
From: mikc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mike Coughlin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Forth will Replace C
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:39:11 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <1992Sep11.115043.6038@email.tuwien.ac.at> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Martin Ertl) writes:
>
>BTW, how about an obfuscated Forth contest?
>- anton
    This is the last thing we need. It would be like an ugly bulldog 
contest. How can you judge something when the potential winners outnumber 
the potential loosers by factors of 100 or more?
    The obfuscated C contest is very popular, but Forth should
do things in the opposite way that C does to gain efficiency. There
should be a Forth beauty contest. I could be a judge in such a
contest. If I read the comments and understand the program,
the author deserves a prize.
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Forth in the Marketplace
Date: 15 Sep 92 12:04:33 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 2,  Topic 11
Message 129       Mon Sep 14, 1992
ELLIOTT.C                    at 13:44 EDT
 
Stephen,

I'm maintaining some software written in L.O.V.E. Forth (shareware). I haven't
had an excuse to explore its filehandling yet, and their floating-point
package isn't complete.  You can set it up to shell out to an editor or
assembler of your choice.
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: jacobsen@itexjct.jct.ac.il (Joel Jacobsen)
Subject: Forth for Z80 based CP/M ?
Organization: ITEX, Jerusalem, Israel
Date: 9 Sep 92 11:53:04 GMT


 Is there a Forth package, PD or low price, for Z80 based cp/m
which combine the friendlyness of L&P 8080 forth with Z80 kernel
ans asembler?

 Is there at least, Z80 assembler package for the 8080 L&P?  


       Joel