Talk:Forth (programming language)/Archive 1

message: Its name is derived from Mr. Moore's belief that it was a "fourth-generation computer language"
I believe this is wrong. Fourth-generation languages are declarative languages like SQL, which Forth is not, as far as I know. I believe that the inventor thought that Forth was the fourth higher computer language ever written. That is something completely different. Spektr 21:15, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)
Mr. Moore thought that FORTH was a fourth generation language, even if it isn't so in fact. The article is correct. --Prosfilaes 06:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fourth-generation language" in the sense of "SQL" was a marketing buzzword. To my knowledge it does not mean anything objective and is not used by actual practitioners of computer science as a meaningful categorization of languages (as categories such as "pure-functional language" or, orthogonally, "strongly typed language" are). It is as null as Larry Wall's categorization of Perl as a "postmodern programming language". --FOo 02:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: On the Lisp programming language article we have decided that despite the varying orthography we will spell that language's name "Lisp" rather than "LISP". This reflects the common practice of current Lisp users. The language "Forth" is also sometimes spelled "FORTH". Which orthography is preferred among current Forth/FORTH users? --FOo 02:04, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: "Stack-oriented" seems far more important for Forth than "data-structured" in the main description. Data-structured doesn't seem nearly as common a term, either, and it's semi-redundant with "reflective" in there. Benhoyt 01:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stack-oriented language 

message: Hi, 68.68.2.115, as for Talk:Microsoft .NET the comments in the main article have been formatted. Comments are expressed in the talk page, here.
* Delta Forth .NET
Mark Hurd 05:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the justification for listing Forth as a .NET language? 

message: The article claims "A well-designed Forth program reads like natural language".  Without an example, this seems quite POV and depends on one's definition of "natural language". Can someone contribute a chunk of code to illustrate this claim?  Thanks.  --Ds13 07:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Alex.  Well, the second half of it reads as naturally as any example I've seen.  I say add it unless something better comes along! --Ds13 00:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for "natural language" example of Forth code 

message: Hi BACbKA.  I see you've reverted my edit as "incorrect" and you suggest that I did not test on a "standard Forth system".  The great thing about Forth standards is there's so many to choose from!  ;-) My edit was tested on Gforth, which is an implementation of ANS Forth.  Seems "standard" enough to me.  At any rate, the existing code that you put back does not product "the same output" as the article suggests.  At least two things are incorrect in its output when I run that example: 1) there is a " after the !, 2) there's no carriage return at the end. Does that code really output correctly on your system? --Ds13 23:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected by Benhoyt. Cheers. --Ds13 04:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No sweat, BACbKA.  I enjoyed learning that what I thought was "standard" may not be, afterall.  It's good to question assumptions, especially when code compatibility is at issue.  Cheers.  --Ds13 03:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example code

message: I've tinkered with these sections, but this bit could do with a rewrite; basically, moving the File System & Multitasking pieces under the Operating System heading and removing some of the repetitions; there are also parts in the Self (meta) and cross compilation and Implementation of a Forth System that I'm not happy with. Suggestions? Alex 15:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operating system, compilation and implementation rewrite 

message: I would say the widely agreed benefits of forth are the interactivity (fast edit/test/debug cycle) and the power, which is primarily due to the extensibility.
Ideogram 04:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  verifiable benefits of forth 

message: How is Forth a .NET programming language?  Ideogram 22:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  category .NET programming languages 

message: The C article uses the cover of K&R for its infobox image.  I was thinking the cover of Starting Forth (2nd ed.) might make a good image here.  Can anyone produce a good image and upload it?  My copy is looking a bit ragged.  Ideogram 22:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the K&R book cover (click on it) for a fair use rationale. Ideogram 16:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, if it's fair use; is Amazon the source? Alex 00:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image for infobox 

message: There's a request for more images.  Anyone have any good ideas?  Ideogram 23:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a picture of Chuck on http://www.colorforth.com/ Ideogram 16:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking we might have a use for stack diagrams, like the ones in Starting Forth (but without the cartoon characters).  Ideogram 00:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have added these.  Unfortunately the images overlie the blockquote box, and I don't know how to fix this.  Ideogram 03:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think stack pictures would be better put on the RPN page, which already does a good job of explaining the stack concepts. Do many of the other programming language pages have lots of images? I wouldn't think so. --IanOsgood 23:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: The books from Books. tutorials, and classes should be moved to the References section.  They also need ISBN numbers.  There's also an article citation under History of Forth.  Ideogram 03:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: 65.12.192.254 edited the main text as follows:
> Compiled Forth has the unique property of actually being smaller in size than hand optimized assembler. 
As it stands, this makes no sense and will be seen as unsubstantiated propaganda. What are the compared programs trying to accomplish? Are they optimizing for size, for speed, for power consumption? For instance, it is quite easy to make program A smaller than program B when A is allowed to be slower.Mhx 21:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the text either.  At a minimum it needs to be referenced.  Ideogram 21:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unsubstantiatable (wow, what a word!) and doesn't actually make sense at all. Reverting Alex 21:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article on threaded code describes how any given sequence of subroutines (such as the main loop of a typical program) is smaller in size when implemented in threaded code (such as a typical compiled Forth program) than in typical hand-written assembler (as a series of subroutine calls). Please tell me if the threaded code article also "makes no sense", and give me some clues as to how to patch it up. -- DavidCary --70.189.73.224 11:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "hand optimized assembler" is not the same thing as "typical hand-written assember".  It's pretty clear that assembler hand optimized for space can do anything a Forth compiler can do.  Ideogram 14:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: we need these.  Does anyone have a citation for the Byte special issue on Forth?  Ideogram 06:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look into it.  Ideogram 12:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I read through the top node of the online gForth manual and couldn't find anything appropriate.  I think I still need your help on this.  Ideogram 13:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guessed at an applicable citation,  I'm not sure it qualifies though, since I'm not sure gForth is really a "professional Forth system".  Ideogram 13:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnotes, citations, references 

message: The Featured Article Candidate commentators have recommended we reduce the number of external links (see that page for details).  I expect the decisions on what to keep and what to cut will be controversial, especially for the implementations links which they recommend we cut "drastically."  Help!  Ideogram 21:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about finding (or making) a link which links to all the sites. Then we only need one external link. Ideally, all relevant content should be in the article anyway. Stephen B Streater 22:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think their point is that Google already provides that service.  Ideogram 22:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that a search on Forth gets you lots and lots of hits that have not a great deal to do with Forth the language, but Forth the river. This has been an issue for most Forth advocates for a long time; it's difficult stuff to find. Alex 08:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try it, it works surprisingly well. Mhx 20:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can bring up your point with the commentator, if you like.  Ideogram 06:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm coming in way late to this discussion.  IIRC, one of the guidelines mentions the possibilibity of linking to the dmoz.org category to cover a broad spectrum of external links.  In this case, it also works surprisingly well. – 2*6 09:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reduce external links