HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: An Open ANSI Forth Implementation
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:52:32 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us's message of 18 Aug 92 11:49:22 GMT

In article <3995.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes:

   Category 10,  Topic 41
   Message 58        Tue Aug 18, 1992
   E.RATHER [Elizabeth]         at 01:33 EDT

   Bevan writes: How do I _evaluate_ different FORTHs without ...

   Well, you can look at what features they offer, talk to current users, buy
   documentation (for maybe .1 the cost of the system), etc.

Talking (personally) to current users of any FORTH is a bit difficult,
as the only other person who had any real interest in the language
here at MU left 3 years ago.  Anyway, as I noted, the _best_ way I
know of evaluating a product (especially a compiler/interpreter) is to
run my code through it and see what it does.


   Someone else worried about becoming dependent on the features that
   differentiate the various commercial Forths.  If they're the features you
   need, I'd look at it as saving you the cost of re-inventing them. This is an
   advantage, not a liability.  If you roll your own, you not only
   foot the bill for doing so, you're stuck supporting it forever...

But that isn't the choice _I_ usually face.  It is using FORTH where
the facilities aren't built into a particular system or using a
language where the facilities are built in.  Note I wrote _language_
not _system_.  This means I can take the code in that language and
use it on a different system and it will still work.


   I see no reason to fear being "trapped" on a single platform.  Again, most
   commercial vendors support multiple platforms...

Sure, but all you've done is replace being trapped on a single
platform by being trapped by a single vendor.  This is nice and cosy
for the vendor, but as a user, it is not a position I like to be in,
no matter how good the vendors products are.


   And, of course, it's also why folks were willing to invest so
   heavily in ANS Forth.

and it is why I'm all in favour of a _free_ _portable_ system which
meets this standard.  Once I've seen what is available for _free_ I'll
be in a better position to judge what I'm getting for my money if/when
I buy a system.  This is exactly what I do with C, using gcc as the
comparator, and so far no commercial system has done anything
significantly better to warrant the money.

bevan
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Net access for SIGFORTH too?
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:07:33 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

The following message appeared on comp.org.acm a few days ago.  Does
anyone from SigForth read comp.lang.forth and/or comp.org.acm _and_ happen
to know if there is anything like this in the works for SigForth?
-Doug

+From: bcohen@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Blanche Cohen)
+Newsgroups: comp.org.acm
+Subject: Re: Providing Feedback to the ACM
+Message-ID: <1992Aug6.181256.14119@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
+Date: 6 Aug 92 18:12:56 GMT
+Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

+You may be happy to note that in the next 8-12 months ACM is going to
+be offering acm.org (it exists now but not in final release). As for other
+net access, a number of SIGs have set up internet access, most notably
+SIGGRAPH (siggraph.org) and SIGCHI (chi@xerox.com). More info is 
+available in the SIG periodicals.  

---
Preferred:  dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us	Ok:  {pitt,sei}!willett!dwp
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Environmental Queries
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 22:25:39 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <4007.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes:

>Category 10,  Topic 33
>Message 10        Fri Aug 21, 1992
>B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 22:49 EDT
> 
>                 ANSI X3J14 FORTH TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
>                     (X3J14 dpANS-3, March 1992)

>     Note: if the related proposal, "ENVIRONMENT? should take
>     text from input stream" is adopted, then I withdraw this
>     proposal as no longer being necessary.

I prefer the current proposal (make S" interpretive in CORE), but I
would definitely support either of these proposals.

>     Objections.

>     It has been pointed out that most implementors will include
>     an interpretive behavior for S" anyway, and so it need not
>     be included in the standard.  This overlooks the fact that,
>     no matter what is provided by the vendors, no program can be
>     a "Standard Program" if it uses S" interpretively.  At best,
>     it can only be a Standard Program with an environmental
>     dependency on the File-Access word set.

>     If all implementors will include interpretive S", there is
>     no harm in mandating this behavior in the standard.  If this
>     is how the Committee believes ENVIRONMENT? should be used,
>     interpretive S" should be mandated in the standard.

I'm leaving this quote in, simply because I think that this is excellent
reasoning, and I agree wholeheartedly.

The current definition of ``ENVIRONMENT?'' seems very poor to me, and I
think that either of Brad's proposals here would provide an excellent
and robust alternative.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: @moci.uucp
Subject: Re: Where can I get a forth for the TMS-34010
Organization: ICOM, Inc., West Allis, WI
Distribution: comp
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 14:52:41 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

bilodeau@ikaria.ensmp.fr (Michel Bilodeau <bilodeau@cmm.ensmp.fr>) writes:
: I am looking for a forth the the Graphic Processor from Texas
: the 34010 or 34020.

Laboratory Microsystems makes a cross-compiler for the TI 34010.  I
haven't worked with this target, but their Z80, 8086, and 8051/31 are
well documented, professional systems.  The cross compiler runs on an
IBM PC compatible host.

For more information, call LMI's BBS at (310) 306-3530.

Cheers,
Dave Ruske            ...!uwm.edu!moci!dave         GEnie: D.RUSKE1
From: exuhag@exu.ericsson.se (James Hague)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: "Free" Forth is expensive
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:21:55 GMT
Reply-To: exuhag@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Richardson, TX

Nicolas Tamburri writes:
>
>Still, the user needs a language.  He starts looking at ads, or catalogues,
>or (God-forbid) start browsing the local software store's language section.
>He's now confronted with 2 languagge packages, both of which promise lots
>of libraries and facilities.  One is Forth the other C.  He rembers liking the
>interactive nature of Forth, and decides to check it out.
>
>I don't think this scenario is all that far-fetched.  Something like it
>happened to me. I don't I could be the only one.

It happened to me as well.

>This same problem affects F-PC, and Yerk/Mops.  Both excellent packages
>in their own right, but my mind reels when I type WORDS, and the list goes on
>forever.   Where do you begin understanding a system like that?  Imagine
>what it looks like to the novice.

One of the saving graces of Forth is--or rather should be--simplicity.
I have a hard time bringin myself to use most modern development systems, but
it seems I am the only person who doesn't get along with C compilers which
arrive in 75-pound boxes containing a dozen manuals.  I do not think that
power and complexity need always be associated.

As I see it, there are two kinds of Forths:  those which are poorly documented
and lacking polish; and expensive overly complex development systems which, though
they may be well-designed, were designed more for industrial embedded applications
that "normal" programming.

What is needed is a *solid* product which is between these two extremes.  To
draw an analogy, I would much rather use a small, carefully designed, consistent, and
predictable text editor than an out of control monstrosity which promises the world.

--
James Hague   
exuhag@exu.ericsson.se
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: An Open ANSI Forth Implementation
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:17:39 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us's message of 12 Aug 92 11:50:37 GMT

In article <3980.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes:
   Category 10,  Topic 41
   Message 37        Wed Aug 12, 1992
   E.RATHER [Elizabeth]         at 00:56 EDT

   Regarding Bevan's point about Borland, AT&T et al "seeding the market" with
   free software...please note that these are both large, wealthy and
   prestigious organizations.

So noted, but Borland was small once.  They grew on the back of things
like Turbo Pascal which is one of the very products which they gave
away to "seed the market".

As to other companies which give their software away, Iverson Software
give away the complete source to their J interpreter (an APL like
language).  Iverson Software is not a large company by any means.
Maybe they will start charging in the future (especially for a
compiler), but until then they are building up a following amongst
people who can just pick up and try their system with no cost or
obligation.

As a matter of interest, are any vendors willing say how many units
they have sold to universities?  If there are a large number, then I
guess I'll just shut up as FORTH is obviously being used in
universities (if not here).  If not, then vendors wouldn't be losing
anything by giving the software to interested universities (sans any
expensive documentation to reduce the cost).

Regarding :-

   Category 2,  Topic 9
   Message 82        Wed Aug 12, 1992
   E.RATHER [Elizabeth]         at 00:23 EDT


   ...I'd like to heartily echo Dick's words, and urge people that
   find themselves in the same situation to evaluate the commercial

How do I _evaluate_ different FORTHs without having to buy them and
try them out?  Reading somebody else's comparison is a good start, but
there is nothing better than being able to test them on your own code.
As someone else noted if I was going to lay down a lot of money
(thousands) I'm sure a vendor would be willing to let me try out the
system, but when we are talking about tens or hundrends instead of
thousands ...?


   offerings on the market.  Each serves a slightly different market,
   with different collections of library functions, support, etc.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

i.e. instant death to any chances of running the code on a different
FORTH if you actually use the functions.  They might be great for
people who just want to program on one machine (just like all the
libraries that come with Turbo Pascal which help with programming on a
PC), but if you are interested in portability they are just a waste
of space.

bevan
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Environmental Queries
Date: 22 Aug 92 13:27:20 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 10,  Topic 33
Message 8         Fri Aug 21, 1992
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 22:41 EDT
 
                 ANSI X3J14 FORTH TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
                     (X3J14 dpANS-3, March 1992)

TITLE:  Prohibit name conflicts in environmental queries

SECTION:  3.1.4 Environmental Queries
          7.6.3 Environmental Queries

SUMMARY:  Environmental query strings should have names that are
     distinct from Forth words, so that they may be stored with-
     out conflict in the Forth dictionary.

PROPOSAL:  Add the following text to section 3.1.4:

          "No input string shall be defined for ENVIRONMENT? that
          has the same name as a Standard word."

     In the table in section 3.1.4, change the string ALIGN to
     the string ALIGNMENT.

     In the table in section 7.6.3, change the string BLOCK to
     the string BLOCK-ACCESS.

DISCUSSION:  A necessary function of ENVIRONMENT? is to locate
     one of a set of predefined strings.  It seems likely that
     many ANS Forth implementations will use the Forth dictionary
     and dictionary-searching mechanism for this purpose.  This
     useful approach would be rendered difficult -- or, in
     single-wordlist systems, impossible -- if there is a name
     conflict between an ENVIRONMENT? string and a Forth word.

     At present, there are only two such conflicts: the words
     ALIGN and BLOCK.  This proposal would change the names of
     these environmental queries, and leave the Forth words
     unchanged.

-----
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: mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas)
Subject: Re: Free Forth
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:54:20 GMT
Organization: StarNine Technologies, Inc.

In article <1992Aug14.173059.20181@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> pazsan@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Bernd Paysan) writes:
>
>bigFORTH is a
>platform oriented Forth (now for the Atari ST, a 386 version will
>follow), highly optimized and really big (but not too big to 
>teach a beginner).

I would propose that "platform-oriented" Forths (which I take to
mean a Forth that is designed to mate particularly well with a
particular operating system) should not care at all about their
size.

In these kind of Forths, the emphasis should NOT be on 4K kernels and
compiling into the absolute barest minimum space possible.  As long
as larger size resultss from increased functionality (a more powerful Forth)
I'll gladly make that trade.

The trend is more & more memory in the machine, so what do I care
if a Forth takes up 100k or 500k if I have Megs to work with?

This is particularly true in platforms such as UNIX, AMiga, Mac... platforms
that allow more than one application to be loaded at a time, and in the
case of UNIX and the AMiga, provide true pre-emtive multitasking.
I suppose WIndows on the PC falls into this category (even though, like
the Mac, it's not pre-emptive).
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Testing Forth and Forth Standards
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:50:40 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 15,  Topic 1
Message 7         Wed Aug 12, 1992
E.RATHER [Elizabeth]         at 01:04 EDT
 
Marcel notes the need for... >a relatively independent referee with inside ANS
Forth
 knowledge

I'm a little concerned about the possibility that there needs to be anyone
with knowledge beyond what's written in the document. True, TC members know a
lot about how decisions were arrived at (and have tried very hard to write up
the important background information in rationales), but the document should
speak for itself as far as normative requirements.  If there are any areas of
ambiguity that you see, *please* write us about them now during this public
review period!
-----
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: dvf@kepler.unh.edu (David V Feldman)
Subject: JForth Professional 3.0
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Distribution: worldwide
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 03:23:14 GMT

I own and use Jforth Professional 2.0 and just noticed an add
for Jforth Pro. 3.0.  What improvements does the new version
represent?  When was it releasted?  How much is an upgrade?
Is 4.0 on the way?

Thanks,
David Feldman
University of New Hampshire
d_feldman@math.unh.edu (internet)

Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: ANS TC Magnet for ROMability
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 22:08:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <4000.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes:

>Category 10,  Topic 22
>Message 76        Fri Aug 21, 1992
>B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 22:45 EDT

Brad asks about the possibility that a cross-compiler could be an ANSI
standard system (as opposed to merely being a standard program).  The
answer, as I see it is: no way!!

It might be a good idea *at some point* to come up with a way to define
"standard cross-compilable programs", but Forth is, and always has been,
an interpretive language.  Cross-compilers remove the interactive nature
(specifically, the ability to execute newly created definitions).

There's one exception to my "no way" comment above: if the
cross-compiler can, somehow, execute a newly created definition out of
the target system.  This is far beyond the capabilities of most cross
compilers I have seen, but I suppose it might be possible in some cases.

>QUESTIONS:  Please answer the following:

[I've only answered a subset of these]

>  6. To what extent must newly-defined Forth words, comprising a
>     Standard Program, be executable interpretively in a Standard
>     System?

100%

>  7. Which of the following are valid Standard Programs?

>     a)   4 5 + .

>     b)   : TEST  4 5 + . ;

>     c)   : TEST  4 5 + . ;  TEST

>     d)   4 CONSTANT FOUR   FOUR 5 + .

>     e)   : SQR  DUP * ;  4 SQR CONSTANT FOO

>     f)   : SQCON  DUP * CONSTANT ;   4 SQCON FOO

All of them.

Cases e) and f) show the reason for this.  Removing this ability would
virtually eliminate Forth's ability to create complex data structures,
as well as breaking huge amounts of existing code.

> 10. What penalties are imposed upon vendors who wrongfully label
>     cross-compilers "ANSI Standard"?

Judging from what I've seen of other languages, none.  Except, perhaps,
public censure.  :-)

Writing cross-compilable code almost always entails using various
extensions to specify whether words exist in the host or target system. 
At some point, it would probably be a good idea to codify and
standardize some of these extensions, and perhaps modify the standard to
allow a normal standard system to recognise (and perhaps ignore) these
extensions.  Until then, standard programs can not necessarily be
cross-compiled, and standard systems may not be able to handle
cross-compilable code.

At the moment, I think that this is an issue best left alone.  Brad
seems to be proposing something that would virtually gut the standard,
unless the issues I mention in the previous paragraph are dealt with.

Disclaimer:  my opinions only, I'm not a member of, or associated with,
the ANS TC, or any company that has representitives on the TC.
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
From: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us (Eric S Johansson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: An Open ANSI Forth Implementation
Date: 13 Aug 92 06:16:38 GMT
Organization: gators 'r us
X-Version: Rodney's UUCP modules 02/11/90 V1.18

In article <3980.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us
(ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes:
> Category 10,  Topic 41
> Message 37        Wed Aug 12, 1992
> E.RATHER [Elizabeth]         at 00:56 EDT
>  
> Regarding Bevan's point about Borland, AT&T et al "seeding the market" with
> free software...please note that these are both large, wealthy and prestigious
> organizations.  They can afford to develop a highly polished system and give
> it away in volume, and their offering will receive respect and interest
> because of their prestige.  These are IMHO the important elements:  the money
> to develop a polished product before there is a market, the money to manage
> the introduction properly (whether that means giveaways orother types of
> promotion), and the market clout/prestige to be listened to.

I can't speak for borland but when  at&t c++ (cfront) first came out it was a
total Piece Of C**p that competed with free forths for the worst
compiler implementation of the year award.  on top of that you had to
pay 2000$ for a source license for the privilage.  Cfront retained its
POC nature well past its 2.0 release which was the last one I used.

your comments about the amount of effort it takes to generate a
polished product is well taken.  

--- eric
--
HOME: esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us  HAM  ka1eec
WORK: 617.630.4687 (w)   johansson@athena.polaroid.com
source of the public's fear of the unknown since 1956
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Selecting a Public Domain Kernel
Date: 22 Aug 92 13:26:48 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 1,  Topic 7
Message 146       Fri Aug 21, 1992
B-LEE [b0b]                  at 11:16 EDT
 
  -----via CRS Premium Bulletin Board 
  Date: 08-17-92 (12:30)              
  From: JERRY SHIFRIN                 
  Subj: FORTH FOR BERT                
  B[> I don't know how this project has progressed. I have the old 
  fashioned B[> Bert and have thought about putting the 68HC11 on 
  him. Bert now has B[> an older brother who is much lighter and 
  more sophisticated. I shall 

  I haven't touched my BERT in over a year, but if you come up 
  with a 68HC11 implementation, I'd be real interested in trying 
  it out since I happen to have one (of each!) just lying around. 
  ---
     RNet 1.08G:  ForthNet: The Monument Board   Monument, CO   
  719-488-9470 

  PCRelay:GRAPEVNE -> #318 RelayNet (tm)
  4.11          The GrapeVine (501)753-8121 3.6 gigs Dual Std

-----
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: F-PC tidbits
Date: 15 Aug 92 13:47:34 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 2,  Topic 25
Message 10        Fri Aug 14, 1992
L.ZETTEL [Len]               at 20:41 EDT
 
  From: EDWARD LIPSON

 L[>     EDITOR 52 !> PRTLINES \ Set SED lines per page to 52.

 >  Why did you prefix the number of lines by EDITOR - to set the context?

 Yes.  PRTLINES is in the editor vocabulary.  Editor lets it be found in a 
 dictionary search.

 Re: The alternate solutions involving sending escape sequences to the 
 printer to reformat the page.  I have had a chance to investigate this a 
 little more.  It can be done, BUT...

 As Dick Miller observed, the key parameter is the number of lines per 
 inch.  This can be changed very neatly by something like the following:

 : 8lpi ( --) \ Set printer to print eight lines per inch
   PRINTING ON 27 EMIT ." &l8P " PRINTING OFF ;

 Works slick as a whistle.  Dot-paren is real nice for checking things out 
 interactively also.  Of course, you also have to set the character height 
 to something less than 12 points or successive lines will overlap.

 So far, so good, but now come the sticking points.  The next line spacing 
 after six lines per inch (the default) is eight lines per inch (the 
 choices are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 48).  There appears to be no 
 way to "decrease the line spacing slightly".  And, at eight lines per 
 inch, you really have to go to eight point characters (the choices on my 
 25 built-in fonts are mostly 12, 10, and 8).  The result at the default 
 settings of F-PC is UGLY!

 I seem to have run into addendum 429 of Murphy: "No matter how many 
 options are provided, you won't have the one you want".  In this case it 
 would be about six and a half lines per inch and 11 point type.

 Summary: I've learned a few things, and for now, will go with six lines 
 per inch, 12 point Courier, and 52 lines per page.

                           -LenZ-
-----
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