HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mikeh@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Michael Hore)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: ANS figFORTH
Date: 25 Jul 92 07:42:55 GMT
Organization: Kralizec Dialup Unix Sydney: +61-2-837-1183 V.32


Mitch Bradley writes:

> ... thus further eroding the ability of Forth vendors to make a profit,
> thus ensuring that Forth will forever be relegated to a hobbyist language
> or an academic curiosity.

> Down with free Forth systems.

Maybe you're being slightly tongue-in-cheek, Mitch, but I'll bite,
and say something in defense of free Forth systems.

I can easily sympathize with your point of view, and would probably
feel the same if I was the implementor of a commercial
Forth system.  In fact, I would _love_ to be the implementor of
a commercial Forth system.  I think that's the main point,
for some of us at least -- we have very little choice.

I developed Mops because (1) Neon was discontinued, (2) I had a
lot of applications written using Neon, and (3) I liked it, and
wanted to keep using it.  I could have switched to MacForth, with
difficulty, but I preferred Neon.  Also, I'm a hacker at heart,
and always happier as an implementor rather than a user.

But I was in no position to join the ranks of the vendors myself.
The reality of the situation in the Mac programming world,
at least, is that non-mainstream development systems aren't going
to make a lot of money.  Apple and Symantec have things pretty
well sewn up; Creative Solutions manages reasonably, I understand,
but there isn't really room for anybody else (cf. what happened
with Palo Alto Shipping).

I would very much like to make a living with Mops, but it's quite
obvious that I never will.  I also figured that with a fairly new 
development system I would possibly just discourage people if I
made it shareware, and not make much money anyway.  Also that a
better system would result if others were free to contribute as
well.  So that's why Mops is free.

So Mitch, please don't be too hard on us.  We all love Forth,
enough to put in a large amount of effort in (very limited)
spare time.  And I think many of us would give an arm and a
leg to be part of a commercial development team, if we had the
chance.

Cheers,    Mike.     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hore          internet:    mikeh@kralizec.zeta.org.au
"Wisdom has never been known to enter the head through an open mouth"
-- overheard somewhere.
From: Interface!b0b@overmind.mind.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: ANS figFORTH
Date: 23 Jul 92 03:48:00 GMT
Organization: ForthNet, 707-544-9661, v.32bis
X-mailer: Stadel 3.4a-227
X-Spam-content: irrelevant
Subject: Re: ANS figFORTH Message-ID: <ZJJcoB1w165w@interface.via.mind.org> 
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 20:58:22 PDT Organization: Interface BBS, 707-544-9661, 
ForthNet 
 nick@sw.stratus.com writes: 
 # wmb@pi.Eng.Sun.COM (Mitch Bradley) writes: # >  # > ... thus further 
eroding the ability of Forth vendors to make a profit, # > thus ensuring that
 Forth will forever be relegated to a hobbyist language # > or an academic 
curiosity. # >  # > Down with free Forth systems. # >  # > Mitch #  # I 
understand your sentiment, but I don't agree with you.  From personal # 
experience, I've bought a bunch of Forth implementations (yours included,) # 
to run on Atari 8-bitters, an Amiga and a Mac.  I would probably not have # 
bought any, had I not been introduced to Forth via freebie Forths on each # 
platform.  (The first hit is always free I guess. :-) 
 I tend to agree with Nick.  I would never have bought FORTHMACS if I  hadn't 
learned the basics on a PD Forth.  Mitch, your system offers a lot  of "value
 added" features over the standard PD systems, and those  features *do* sell 
your product. 
 I like being able to give a high school kid a good PD implementation to  play
 with.  Just as a software house demands a good, value added Forth, a  student
 needs a free, standard system to learn on.  I'd never recommend a  PD Forth 
for serious development (for a variety of reasons), but they do  fill 
educational and hobbiest needs nicely. 
 Up with free Forth systems! 
 --- 
    b0b@interface.via.mind.org          Interface BBS -- 707-544-9661 
    TTWWWAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGG!  Citadel, ForthNet, 14400 bps
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Wetware messages
Date: 26 Jul 92 13:41:22 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 14,  Topic 3
Message 8         Sun Jul 26, 1992
D.RUFFER [Dennis]            at 02:01 EDT
 
Re: jpeters@wet.COM

 > I have begun indexing all major forth words in all systems that
 > are available to the Berkley FIG chapter.  We have set up a BBS
 > in Novato that is dedicated to Forth.  It will be the depository
 > for the index of Forth words.  It is able for computer searching.

GREAT idea John!  What is the phone number of your BBS and is/will your
database redistributable (i.e. can we put it on the ForthNet)?

I'd love to volunteer to help, but I'm already too deep in ___ ;)

If you give me a import file spec I could probably get you some of the
polyFORTH references to add to your collection.

Best of luck!   {B-{)>   DaR
-----
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: An Open ANSI Forth Implementation
Date: 23 Jul 92 11:57:00 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 10,  Topic 41
Message 7         Thu Jul 23, 1992
D.RUFFER [Dennis]            at 01:51 EDT
 
Re: wmb@pi.Eng.Sun.COM

 >> We'll hope to get volunteers to join the group, so that we'll
 >> get not just another Forth, but THE Forth of the 90th!
 >
 > ... thus further eroding the ability of Forth vendors to make a
 > profit,

Mitch, I think I saw that they were going to be writting this thing in C.  If
that is true, I doubt any vendor but you will be affected. However, you most
certainly _should_ be concerned.  If they do succeed in making "THE Forth" you
could potentially be out of business, but when have you _ever_ seen one Forth
that everyone could agree on?

Personally, I'm not scared in the least by the public domain Forths. They
constantly drive me to make improvements and I can always beat them in support
and documentation.  So, I say let them try their bests.  With an ANS Standard,
we all have an equal shot at "THE Forth of the 90s".  I welcome the
competition.

   {B-{)>   DaR
-----
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: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: +LOOP in the Standard
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 20:12:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1992Jul22.080702.12713@email.tuwien.ac.at> anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Martin Ertl) writes:

>In article <l6lr51INNsvo@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, wmb@pi.Eng.Sun.COM (Mitch Bradley) writes:
>|> 
>|> > As it reads in Basis 15,
>|> > 	2 0 DO 1 +LOOP
>|> > will loop twice, but
>|> > 	-2 0 DO -1 +LOOP
>|> > will loop three times.
>|> > 
>|> > Is this in the current dpANS and is this intended?
>|> 
>|> Yes, and it's the way that Forth systems have always worked.

>Thanks for the reply.

>I have tested it on two systems, TILE Release 2.1 (which claims to be
>a Forth-83) and a fig-Forth derived system that claims to be a
>Forth-79. On both systems both loops loop two times.

It's certainly a bug in TILE--the 83 standard does insist that +LOOP
work as shown above.  It's been quite a while since I worked with 79
standard, but I think that perhaps it *did* work the way that Anton
wants.  In which case Mitch was wrong, but only partly.  It's the way
that (most) Forth systems work, but not the way they've always worked.

I happen to prefer the 83 mechanism (for reasons unrelated to this
particular issue).  There were what I felt (in '83) were good and
sufficient reasons for this to change.  And I suspect that there are far
more 83-Forth systems out there than 79 systems.

Perhaps a warning in the standard would be appropriate, but it would be
MUCH MORE NECESSARY if +LOOP worked the way that Anton seems to feel is
correct.  The way above *is* the way that *most* Forth systems work
today.  Choosing *either* the 79 or 83 mechanism is likely to confuse
someone.  But this is an *old* issue.  Nearly 10 years old. <sigh>
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
From: jdmst11@pitt.edu (John D Morris)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Wanted: C source for forth interpreter
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:14:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: jdmst11@unix.cis.pitt.edu

I am interested in obtaining the C source for a public domain forth 
interpreter.  If you know where I can find one, could you please E-mail 
to the address below...I am not subscribed to this group, so don't waste
any bandwidth by posting replies.
					Thanks
					jdmst11@unix.cis.pitt.edu

Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: jkh@sparc3.lotus.com (Jordan K Hubbard)
Subject: Looking for Object Oriented Forth..
Organization: Lotus Ireland
Distribution: comp
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:39:52

Hi.  I've heard of Neon, but from what I know of it, it's available only
on the Macintosh.  Is there any other forth out there, especially publically
available, that one could use to show OOP weenies that forth isn't totally
lost when in comes to programming in such a model?

				Jordan
From: fnia@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet Information Account)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Changes to [comp.lang.forth 1/2] Forth On-line Resource/Technical Help
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:17:43 GMT
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.


[No change from previously posted copy.]
---
If you have any questions about ForthNet/comp.lang.forth or any information
to add/delete or correct in this message or any suggestions on formatting or
presentation, please contact either Doug Philips or Gary Smith (preferably
both, but one is OK) via the following addresses:

  o   Internet: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
          -or-  ddi1!lrark!glsrk!gars@uunet.uu.net

  o   Usenet:   ...!uunet!ddi1!lrark!glsrk!gars
          -or-  ...!uunet!willett.pgh.pa.us!dwp

  o   GEnie:    GARY-S or D.PHILIPS3

  o   ForthNet: Grapevine, Gary Smith - leave mail in Main Conference (0)
From: Interface!b0b@overmind.mind.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Forth in the Marketplace
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:58:00 GMT
Organization: ForthNet, 707-544-9661, v.32bis
X-mailer: Stadel 3.4a-227
X-Spam-content: irrelevant


   I'm all in favor of promoting Forth (or OOF) as the Next Big Thing. Most 
people have never even heard of Forth at this point.  It can be  viewed as 
something new and wonderful, if presented in the proper light. 
 
   I like to point out to people that PostScript is actually just "a very  odd
 implementation of Forth, dedicated to imaging."  True, PostScript  doesn't 
compile, but doesn't that make Forth BETTER than PostScript? 
 
   The "modern" paradigm of "noun > verb" or "object > action" is very  
Forth-like.  We put numbers (nouns, objects) on the stack and apply Forth  
words (verbs, actions) to them.  Isn't this the basis of current user  
interface design? 
 
   Much of the Forth community seems resigned to fade into obscurity.  The  
current resistance to dpANS-3 reflects this attitude.  I'm ready to leave  
the nay-sayers in the dust.   
 
   It's time to get moving with the Next Big Thing - Forth! 
 --- 
    b0b@interface.via.mind.ORG          Citadel  US 707-544-9661 
   "Perot's out; I move up a notch."    ForthNet  v.32  v.32bis
From: cs.kun.nl!erwin@overmind.mind.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Parallel Forth's
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:53:00 GMT
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
X-mailer: Stadel 3.4a-227
X-Spam-content: irrelevant

Hi,

We are working with our own ANS Forth implementation for the INMOS
transputer and (among other things) we are experimenting with parallel
computing.
Our main problem is that Forth is in the category of incremental
compilers. This makes the standard implementation of multiprocessing a
bit difficult. (The easy way is to first flood your program around the
whole network and then start computing). Because each tranputer may
decide to load more code a scheme where only program counters are
communicated is useless. Currently we are thinking of sending simple
forth commands to each node but we think it is too slow for real use.
Have there been any discussions about this subject?

Erwin Dondorp

(P.S. This is more or less a private project, itoes not involve the
above mentionned university!)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: rfl@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Bob Loewenstein)
Subject: MOPS2.2 & anonymous ftp
Organization: University of Chicago, Astronomy and Astrophysics
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:22:53 GMT


MOPS2.2 and documentation is available for anonymous ftp
at oddjob.uchicago.edu in directory pub/Yerk. Yerk 3.63
is also available at this site.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: HELP! eforth Documentation ..
From: mentink@wronz.org.nz
Date: 22 Jul 92 08:17:33 +1200

	HELP!

	Still looking for documentation to EFORTH words.
Can anyone come to the rescue. I have written to the authors of EFORTH
but no reply as yet.

Regards.

Bernie Mentink
Wool Research of NZ
email: mentink@wronz.org.nz
From: cmr02@SCM.TEES-POLY.AC.UK ("Peter J Knaggs.")
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Anyone know of "Markov" ?
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:58:43 GMT
Reply-To: FIGI-L%BRUSPVM.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The Internet

Hi,

I was just doing a literature search this afternoon, when I cam across a
paper (well abstract really):

@inproceedings{Forth:Markov,
	author=		"Nick Solntseff",
	title=		"Markov: A Strongly Typed, Threaded, Interactive
			 Language Preliminary Design Considerations",
	booktitle=	"Proc. Rochester Forth Conf. on Embedded Systems",
	year=		1990}

(Sorry this is cut out of my BibTeX bibliography database)

He claims Markov is derived from Forth and SML (Standard Meta Language).

Whilst Nick is still recovering from his hart attack I do not particularly
want to bother him.  Thus can anyone shine some light on this "Markov"
language for me?

Peter J. Knaggs.        School of Computing and Maths, University of Teesside,
pjk @ scm.tees.ac.uk    Middlesbrough, England.         +44 (642) 342673
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
From: @moci.uucp
Subject: Re: An Open ANSI Forth Implementation
Organization: ICOM, Inc., West Allis, WI
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:01:07 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes:
: Category 10,  Topic 41
: Message 20        Thu Jul 30, 1992
: D.RUFFER [Dennis]            at 01:12 EDT
:  
: ...how many read the EE
: article a while ago about Forth?  I just heard that FIG has gotten over 500
: new member sign ups because we are now the "elite" language.  Obviously, the
: reports of our death was a little premature.
: 
:    {B-{)>   DaR

I found the EE Times article entertaining enough:  I especially liked the
table of space-related apps centered in the text.  I don't know about the
author's stack usage, though.  After mentioning the parameter and return
stacks, he goes on to say that "words communicate via the stack, obtaining
input (from parameter) and leaving behind the results of the operation
(return)."  Gee, I've been leaving results on the wrong stack!!  :-) ;-)

If FIG has really received this many new member sign ups related to this
article, perhaps they should try placing a single ad in EE Times before
it's impact is lost:  it is possible the new dues would pay for such
advertisement.  If I were a vendor I would consider this as well, although
I'd probably have to weigh this against eating...    -sigh-

Cheers,
Dave Ruske           ...!uwm.edu!moci!dave           GEnie: D.RUSKE1
R
From: pazsan@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Bernd Paysan)
Subject: Re: ANS figFORTH
Keywords: ANS, fig, implementation
Originator: pazsan@hphalle6d.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 10:48:43 GMT


In article <l6lr0pINNsvk@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, wmb@pi.Eng.Sun.COM (Mitch Bradley) writes:
|> 
|> > We'll hope to get volunteers to join the group, so that we'll get not just
|> > another Forth, but THE Forth of the 90th!
|> 
|> ... thus further eroding the ability of Forth vendors to make a profit,
|> thus ensuring that Forth will forever be relegated to a hobbyist language
|> or an academic curiosity.
|> 
|> Down with free Forth systems.
|> 
|> Mitch

FLAME ON

Yeah, and down with free GNU C, because it's the better C :-). Without fig noone
would have an idea of what Forth is (and without Chucks first PD version Forth
would be a dead born child :-). YOUR Forth is based on F83, so YOU make the
profit of a free Forth system. Reinvent the wheel! Reinvent Forth! Look for a
totally different approach! Then complain about free Forth systems! You are the
winner of F83! Maybe you'll be the winner of ANS figFORTH, not I, because you'll
build your next open boot firmeware on top of it (and it's pretty better to sell
ROMed Forth in every workstations than to sell a teaching packet)? If you have to
fear, that we build somewhat significantly better than your Forth (or FORTH
Inc.'s Forth or LMI's (they resist in their figFORTH derivate, don't they?)), you
should double your activities to cope with us. Or copy and improve.

Without free Forth systems Forth would be nothing. Without free Forth systems
there would be only one Forth vendor, FORTH Inc. A monopolist does not want to
reach a broad public. FORTH Inc., nevertheless, lives quite good even today with
their professional prices ($xxxx instead of a $xx product), without having to
fear PD systems. The explicit scope of our ANS figFORTH is hobbyists and
education. We want to produce a system that is good enough to fit this. If
education systems are good enough for professional projects, this is not our
fault, it's the benefit of Forth and the lack of additional features in
professional systems.

FLAME OFF
-- 
Bernd Paysan
"Keep it stupid simple!"
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: What is the return stack for? (was: What should the Standard include?)
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:52:02 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

In article <3915.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
	B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] writes:
+I don't use '&' inside DO..LOOPs, just as I don't factor 'I' or 'J' into words
+which are used within DO..LOOPs.  Just one more of those things you have to
+learn to live with.

Pardon me for being confused here.  Aren't I and J are effectively local
variables to the DO LOOP 'block' in which they occur?  If so then it makes
sense that they cannot be "factor"ed in the manner you suggest.  Personally,
I find DO LOOPS to be egregiously restrictive for other reasons.

+Apologies for unclarity in my previous posting:  all I need is your #R>, to
+drop a given number of items from the return stack. (Actually, I need to "pop"
+the RP to a previously saved position, which would require RDEPTH as well as
+#R>.)  But I still need on other occasions to move return stack items to and
+from the parameter stack, and preserve their meaning.

I think one of the "problems" with return stack "entitlements" is that
the return stack is used for more than just "get me back to my invoking
word" information, _and_ that the return stack is not typed.  So, even
if you are given the size in cells of "return addresses", you still don't
know if there are other items on the return stack.  Although DO LOOP
(and perhaps CASE ENDCASE  I don't recall) are known to muddle the
return stack, the mere existance of >R R> means that the user is
free to diddle the return stack, and therefore you simply can't know what
is "really" on it.

-Doug
---
Preferred:  dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us	Ok:  {pitt,sei}!willett!dwp
From: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us (Doug Philips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Mops
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:37:12 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

In article <3930.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
	M.HORE [Mike] writes:

+BTW, in future releases of Mops I may not include all the binaries in the
+release, to save download time, since the package is now so big.  In other
+words, the procedure for compiling the system above the nucleus will probably
+become the normal practice.  It's not hard to do (I hope you all agree!!)

I certainly hope you reduce the size of the release.  700K+ is outrageous.
Perhaps you could produce two releases, binary only and source only?
(Many PC packages are available that way).

-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: Fixing the Standards - WHY??
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:25:39 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <76236@ut-emx.uucp> hasan@ut-emx.uucp (David A. Hasan) writes:
:In article <1992Jul18.214518.574@mala.bc.ca> bigras@mala.bc.ca writes:
:>
:>If you want real standards { and your hands tied } feel free to use C
:>or Ada or Pascal.
:>
:  ...
:IMHO, the REAL danger lurking behind this reluctance of
:many in the FORTH community to accept the notion of
:standardization is not the migration of programmers to
:C, Pascal or Ada (that migration is very likely driven
:by many other factors).  The REAL danger is that other
:languages which are _both_ standardized and flexible
:will replace FORTH as the alternative to C et al., for
:example, Scheme.  
:-- 
: |   David A. Hasan
: |   hasan@emx.utexas.edu 

    Scheme is one of the numerious variants of Lisp. So if Scheme
is a competitor to Forth, then there is hope that an extensible
language can be put into a standard form. Picking one variant
and giving it a certain name is an advantage in the standards
game. Perhaps we will have to take the most promising variant
of Forth and call it something else before it can become a
standard.
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: What should the Standard include?
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:27:32 GMT
Organization: EIEI-U

Category 10,  Topic 30
Message 238       Tue Jul 21, 1992
B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad]          at 01:20 EDT
 
Re. locals & CATCH/THROW, thanks for the observations, gentlemen; you raise
important issues.  I'll reply at greater length soon.

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: mjn@pseudo.uucp (Murray Nesbitt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Basic question
Date: 24 Jul 92 04:09:13 GMT
Organization: Private system in Toronto, ON


In article <92203.123433GNR100@psuvm.psu.edu> GNR100@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>            Hi.  could somebody tell me how the PLAY statement in BASIC
> works?  I mean, what the arguments mean?Here's an example of the statement
> in question:
>
>
>
>
>          Any help would be graet.  By the way, I'm familiar with most of the
> language, including the SOUND statement, if it would help in the explanation.

I think your problem is that you are missing the arguments to the PLAY
statement...in fact, I think you may be missing the PLAY statement
itself.  I'm not surprised it doesn't work.

Murray
-- 
Until my site's in the maps, please reply to "druid!pseudo!mjn".
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc