HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Forth will Replace C
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:22:05 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

In article <1992Sep11.123911.21622@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
	mikc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mike Coughlin) writes:
+    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.

To me, comments would detract from a beautiful Forth program, as they would
indicate its failure to communicate with me directly.

But I like the idea of the contest.  Would you want to restrict it to a
particular dialect of Forth?

-Doug

pocket @ 2 cents - pocket !
---
Preferred:  dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us	Ok:  {pitt,sei}!willett!dwp
From: martym@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (martin.mcgowan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Free Forth
Date: 5 Sep 92 01:45:38 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <BtIM7n.G7I@starnine.com> mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.213552.18782@crd.ge.com> eaker@ukulele.crd.ge.com writes:
>
>>...Elizabeth Rather's
>>recent posting nicely outlines the business considerations which
>>strongly suggest that ANSI figForth will not meet with the popularity
>>that C did despite its technical merits.
>
>Is there ANYONE who believes that Forth, ANSI or no, will attain
>the popularity that C has?
>
>If so, I've got this bridge...
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: eforth
From: mentink@wronz.org.nz
Date: 9 Sep 92 11:45:37 +1200


Frank Sergeant writes:

>     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

Frank,

    Thank you for your reply. I assumed my above email address was an
internet relative address, not usenet. I have had replies to my
comp.lang.forth posts using that address. I don't know how to send to
your address?.

Anyhow thanks for your suggestions on F.I.G  I'll send them a FAX.

regards
Bernie Mentink
email: mentink@wronz.org.nz
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: An Open ANSI Forth Implementation
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:32:19 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 10,  Topic 41
Message 86        Thu Sep 10, 1992
ELLIOTT.C                    at 16:33 EDT
 
 -----via CRS Premium Bulletin Board

 Date: 09-08-92 (22:00)
   To: MIKE COUGHLIN
 From: JACK WOEHR
 Subj: AN OPEN ANSI FORTH IMPLEM

 ->   But we are wasting our time worrying about C. What we
 really need -> to do first is to get rid of non-Forth
 assemblers.

         An intriguing comment!

                 =jax=

 NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for
 Forth!
 ---
  * The GrapeVine/Ferret Face BBS * NLR,ARK * 501-753-8121 DS *
  * PostLink(tm) v1.01  GRAPEVINE (#318) : RelayNet(tm)

 PCRelay:RUNNINGA -> #2 RelayNet (tm)
 4.11                The Running Board * 301 229-5342 * MD


-----
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: ANS TC Magnet for Interpreter
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:20:50 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 10,  Topic 24
Message 52        Thu Sep 03, 1992
E.RATHER [Elizabeth]         at 21:59 EDT
 
Marcel writes:

> I guess they're trying to say you can't use DOES> together with
 RECURSE and expect unambiguous results?

You bet that's what we're trying to say.  6.1.2120 RECURSE now sez: "...An
ambiguous condition exists if RECURSE appears in a definition after DOES>."

Do hope that's clear!
-----
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: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Personal vs Standard
Date: 7 Sep 92 22:01:12 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Here's an interesting message that shows a different perspective on the "future
of Forth" debate:

> From: amos shapir
> Address : amos@huji.ac.il
> Group   : Usenet.comp.arch
> Subject : Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted
> Posted: 6 Sep 92 13:37:15 GMT
> 
> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> 
>+ The present compilers translate such things as +, *, &, etc., into some
>+ version of assembler.  Why not allow the user to say how other operations
>+ will be similarly translated, and add them to the list? These operations
>+ often produce temporaries; why not tell the user how this is done, and let
>+ them be added to the list?  These would not really complicate the language
>+ design or the compiler, except insofar as precedence is affected.
>+ 
>+ You want C++, then; or the GNU compilers, which do allow you to dive into
>+ the compiler's source and create whatever language extensions you wish to.
>+ The problem is, you'll have no time left in which to do the job originally
>+ intended...
>+ 
>+ The point is, we can use very simple and flexible meta-tools like assembler
>+ or FORTH to create our own tools - and end up each using a personal
>+ hand-tailored language, unique and non portable; or use a standard tool
>+ which does implement some constructs efficiently and portably, but never all
>+ we'd ever need.
> 
> Something to think about...   :)
> 
--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: An Open ANSI Forth Implementation
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:22:08 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

In article <4051.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
	JACK WOEHR writes:
+ ->   But we are wasting our time worrying about C. What we
+ really need -> to do first is to get rid of non-Forth
+ assemblers.

+         An intriguing comment!

Indeed.  Forth is not usually used to assemble code in a batch like fashion.
But it is an interesting idea.  Perhaps we could come up with a spec. for
a Forth based assembler, which in turn could be based upon dpANS Forth?

Hmm...

-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: Forth Eng./ Rockwell 65f12 development
Date: 30 Aug 92 11:21:46 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 9,  Topic 5
Message 14        Sat Aug 29, 1992
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 18:26 EDT
 
mylai@cs.uh.edu asks about (1) multitasking words for Rockwell's 65F11, and
(2) PD or Shareware Forth for the Hitachi 64180.

(1) I don't know.
 (2) Any Z80 Forth (there are several) should be suitable.  I don't know of
any PD/Shareware Forths which are tailored to the 64180's extensions.

Can anyone advise how to get a Z80 Forth via FTP?

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: mhall@amiganet.chi.il.us (Mike Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Anyone want Vols. 1 & 2 of Forth Dimensions?
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:32:55 GMT
Organization: Amiga Network Information Systems

Hi, all!

I've run across some neat stuff while doing "Fall Cleaning".
Anyone interested in having Volumes 1 and 2 of Forth Dimensions? (1978 to 1980
or thereabouts...)

I might also have some other Forth references... have to see what else the box
holds! :)

-Mike


--
Mike Hall       708-393-6350
mhall@amiganet.chi.il.us
From: toma@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Sampler Forth
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:42:49 GMT
Reply-To: toma@sail.labs.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

>>>> (a) Forth is NEVER  going to be the fastest executing language.

In article <1992Sep15.040007.4183@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:

>I'm not sure that Forth NEEDS to be the fastest executing language;
>people have been able to live with the problems of Lisp garbage
>collection, and still swear by Lisp.

>Forth DOES need to make it possible to go fast; the typical built-in
>assembler allows this quite eminently.

Both Forth and Lisp can be compiled into machine code. Back in the days when
the PDP-10 ruled the Lisp world, mathematical benchmarks ran just as fast in
compiled Lisp as they did in Fortran.

Likewise, I've been compiling Forth since 1982. Compiled Forth has always
had an execution speed and code size edge over C, that is only narrowing now
because the C compilers are finally getting sophisticated. (It is much
easier to optimize a Forth compiler)

-- 
Tom Almy
toma@sail.labs.tek.com
Standard Disclaimers Apply
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Forth Speed
Date: 15 Sep 92 06:45:11 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

int452w@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Michael R. Geddes) writes:

>+ If Forth had the support C has, it would also have nice systems with Forth
>+ CPUs, and I think for equal investment in hardware and programming time, the
>+ application in Forth would run a lot faster.
> 
> I agree with this, but also, I have been told that better hardware can often
> give you a reasonable increase in speed, but better algorithms give you an
> order of magnitude increase in speed.  Forth is 'slow' on most systems
> because of the forth 'engine' that goes between machine code and forth code.

Yes, but the critical phrase in your comment is "on most systems".  A CPU
optimized for C is likely to be somewhat less than optimal for Forth.  A CPU
optimized for Forth should run at least as fast as an equivalent CPU optimized
for C, and probably faster, since Forth could run without needing fancy
multi-stage caches, pipelining that has to handle conditionals, etc.

Read Phil Koopman's "Stack Machines, The New Wave" for more details.

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
From: uho@informatik.uni-kiel.dbp.de (Ulrich Hoffmann)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Sampler Forth
Date: 15 Sep 92 12:14:52 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Kiel, FRG

In <0vsntpa.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:

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

>FIG and F-PC may use the "smudge" bit, but it's not a requirement of the
>Forth 83 standard by any means.  

I'm well aware that the smudge bit is not required by Forth 83 nor dpANS.
Unfortunately FIG and F-PC make use of the smudge bit and they are widely used. 

We once asked Tom Zimmer, if he would mind to abandon termination of word names 
by characters with high bit set and allow full 8 Bit characters in word names. 
The answer was, that the effect of eliminating this could have unpredicatble 
effects on existing code and that he will not change it. 
(Sorry if I misinterpreted you, Tom.) 

>In fact, you can even have a fairly traditional header without it. 

Indeed there is really no need for smudge or terminating word names with special
characters. We've been working with an appropriate implementation scheme in volksFORTH
for years. 

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: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Forth in print
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:20:42 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 4,  Topic 7
Message 141       Fri Sep 04, 1992
JDHALL [John]                at 00:27 EDT
 
FIG's new phone number is (510) 89FORTH or fax is (510) 535-1295. The new
address is P.O. Box 2154, Oakland, CA  94621
-----
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: Files on-line
Date: 15 Sep 92 12:04:30 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 1,  Topic 3
Message 163       Mon Sep 14, 1992
D.RUFFER [Dennis]            at 23:52 EDT

[ If you would like a copy of any of these files via email, send email
  to 'fneas@willett.pgh.pa.us'.  Binary files are UUencoded and split
  before mailing.  In the body of your message, include the lines:
		  send Name-of-file-you-want
		  path Your-Internet-relative-email-path
Note:	each file you want must have its own 'send' command.
	you may have more than one send command per message.
	you need only one path command per message.
	the path in the path command _MUST_ be Internet-relative.
	    Despite appearances, user@host.uucp and user@host.bitnet are
	    _not_ Internet relative paths.  See your sysadmin if you need help.
]
 
>>> New File <<<

  No. File Name      Type Address       YYMMDD    Bytes Accesses Lib
 2666 SOUND.FTH       X   B.DUNN5       920911     3968      1    11
    Desc: Sound generation protostandard.

A prototype sound standard.  SOUND ( hertz volume voice# -- ),
 TONE-SOUNDS, and NOISE-SOUNDS.  Implementation for Atari ST.
 A straight ASCII text file, NOT ARCED.

Keywords: sound, protostandard, standard, Atari, ST
-----
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: dak@messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Block versus file
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:09:50 GMT
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik  /  RWTH Aachen

There is some discussion going on block versus free formatted input
in Forth.

The use of blocks has one advantage: simplicity of implementation.
Editors are fast to write, line allocation is of no matter, I/O
is simple to implement etc. Any custom disk structures for databases
cleverly impressed on a block-system will always be superior to
file-based systems. period. The I/O is so simple that on small evaluation
systems the editor and I/O fits into the Eproms. Period.
As a minimal stand alone system study (firmware design) block-based Forth
is not blown up with editor code. Period.

Now let's turn to real world. Development is usually done for PC
software on PCs. There already is an operating system working with
a file structure. Any block structure imposed artificially on the
top of the file system will be SLOWER than fully utilizing the
file system. Users will work usually with their favorite, complex
editors with which they have developped productiveness.

Writing a small OS on an embedded system which gets code fragments
over serial (or other) lines is easy. THERE IS NO MORE REASON to
artificially restrict one to the old block systems, since NOTHING,
I repeat NOTHING, can be gained anymore by it unless your only
computer is a pocket calculator.

If you like to have your hands at the heartbeat of a computer, do it.
If you enjoy scraping paint off the wall with a nailfile because
you need no electric outlet to do so, enjoy yourself. But remember,
what for you is a source of pride, discipline, and enjoyment, may for
others just be a nuisance. Do not blame them for that, just be sad
that so few others see the wonders of your way.

Flames directed at me personally will not get appropriate attention,
so interesting thoughts should be rather posted.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: erwin@cs.kun.nl (Erwin Donderdorp)
Subject: Re: An Open ANSI Forth Implementation
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 23:47:53 GMT

Much of you are discussing about the ASNI Forth implementation.
As a matter of fact we have developped tForth and iForth.
These are transputer based and Intel 80386 based implementations
of the ANSI standard. We believe they are excelent products
and would like to contact people that are interested.

A small list of features:
- 32-bit
- subroutine threaded code with optimizer
- full ANSI implementation
- lots of examples and tools.
- (for tForth) support for parallel programming just like OCCAM.
- and lots more...

If you are interested, please write using email.

Erwin Dondorp
Dutch Forth Workshop
From: pazsan@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Bernd Paysan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Block versus file
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:54:19 GMT
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Originator: pazsan@hphalle5g.informatik.tu-muenchen.de


Well, I have thougth quite a long time about the screen vs. stream
problem. I do not agree withsome of David's points.

DK>Any block structure imposed artificially on the
DK>top of the file system will be SLOWER than fully utilizing the
DK>file system.

Almost every file system HAS a block structure below it, and in many
cases, blocks are a 2^n bytes chunck with n integer and n<=10. So reading
a Forth block (1K) is straigt forward, unbufferd and faster than
arbitrary reading (while "arbitrary" means: less than block size). Even
for my stream file interface I read and write blocks of 2^n bytes (where
n depends on what I found useful). With scanning for line ends stream
file interpretation is SLOWER than block file interpretation, although
less blocks are to read. Now, it's not much slower, so it doesn't hurt.
(and don't blame my scanner: I get 80 000 nl/min through it).

The editor problem: One feature of my Forth (and of F83) I like very
much is VIEW. Now VIEW from Forth to an external editor is easy. But I
don't like to leave my editor while I do edit compile debug. So I have
an editor window, a dialog window and I can do VIEW out of the editor
(and eventually open a new window). If you do incremental coding,
Screens are very nice. You can load each screen seperate. Files tend to
grow, screens are limited (the average stream file is about 200 lines
long in my system). And there is another nice feature: consistence. If I
edit and load from the forth window, I don't have to care about saving
(I should save if I crash the system, either). If I edit and load a text
window, I have either to load from the text buffer (requires strictly an
embedded editor) or I have to save (I must remember).

So summarize: I tend to convert complete source into stream files,
because they are smaller and most screens are nearly full, so if I had
to do small changes, I have room to expand. And I tend to do very small
things in stream files, too, because small stream files feel like one
screen (and they don't waste screen 0).
-- 
Bernd Paysan
"Keep it stupid simple!"
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: An Open ANSI Forth Implementation
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:46:07 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 10,  Topic 41
Message 90        Mon Sep 14, 1992
B.DUNN5 [Brian]              at 01:50 EDT
 
... meanwhile, how is this ANS-FIG Forth coming along?  What machines do you
have it running on so far?
-----
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: ahaley@eoe.co.uk (Andrew Haley)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Forth will Replace C
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:05:38 GMT
Organization: EO Europe Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Mike Coughlin (mikc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu) wrote:
: 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.

Why should this be?  Do you not understand Forth?  Can you not
understand other people's Forth?

I have spent a lot of years working with other people's Forth code,
some of it good, some of it bad.  Forth programmers do the same
foolish things that other programmers do.  There's nothing especially
difficult about maintaining other people's Forth code, once you get
the hang of it.

A beauty contest is a good idea; the most beautiful software I have
ever read has been written in Forth.  But there's a lot more to beauty
than just understandability.


Andrew.
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: FIG Chapters
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:43:35 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 8,  Topic 18
Message 25        Wed Sep 02, 1992
B.DUNN5 [Brian]              at 04:05 EDT
 
I am looking for a FIG chapter in the Chicago area.  The one listed recently (
Cache Forth Chapter ) has a phone number at Bell Labs.  It seems that the
contact person is no longer at Bell Labs, and the older personal phone number
which was listed in older FDs ( and which appears in the local phone books for
'90-91 ) seems to be a wrong number now.

So, does anyone have a contact for this group?
-----
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