dwelly@saddle-lk.cs.UAlberta.CA (Andrew Dwelly) (06/21/91)
Hi. I am just starting a project for which a small in-house language seems like it might be a solution. Because I need to get this running rapidly, and because the syntax/semantics question is not of overwhelming importance a Forth-like language (eg stack based) might be suitable. The last time I wrote one of these, I used a book called something like... "The Byte book of threaded interpreted languages" as a reference. It was borrowed from a library which I no longer have access to. Q. What was the book ? is it still available, alternatively could you recommend a book that covers this subject. Q. Has anyone attempted to write an expert system in Forth ? what was it like ? Q. Is there anywhere I could get hold of the FORML conference proceedings for the last few years ? Thanks in advance. Andy Dwelly -- ****************************************************************************** Andy Dwelly : dwelly@cs.ualberta.ca, Tel: 403-492-7591 !@#$%$#, %^&*%, - Listen, who swears ? Christopher Robin has fallen downstairs. ******************************************************************************
ritchie@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (David Ritchie) (06/21/91)
>The last time I wrote one of these, I used a book called something like... >"The Byte book of threaded interpreted languages" as a reference. It was >borrowed from a library which I no longer have access to. > >Q. What was the book ? is it still available, alternatively could you > recommend a book that covers this subject. > "Threaded Interrpretive Languages" by R.G. Loeliger ISBN 0-07-038360-X. Almost certainly out of print (FIG may have copies -- call them). -- Dave Ritchie ritchie@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
jax@well.sf.ca.us (Jack J. Woehr) (06/22/91)
dwelly@saddle-lk.cs.UAlberta.CA (Andrew Dwelly) writes: >Q. What was the book ? is it still available, alternatively could you > recommend a book that covers this subject. _Threaded Interpretive Languages_, R. G. Loeliger, BYTE 1981 also see: _Inside F83_, C. H. Ting, Offete Enterprises, 1985 _Embedded Control Forth for the 8051 Family_, W. H. Payne >Q. Has anyone attempted to write an expert system in Forth ? what was it > like ? One easy example is EXPERT-2 for MVP-Forth, available from Mountain View Press, 19500 Skyline Boulevard, Box 429 , Route 2, La Honda, CA 94020. >Q. Is there anywhere I could get hold of the FORML conference proceedings > for the last few years ? Forth Interest Group Box 8231 San Jose, CA 95155 ... about $40.00 a copy. -- # jax@well.{UUCP,sf.ca.us} # # Member, # # Chapter Coordinator, # # well!jax@lll-winken.arpa # # X3J14 TC # # Forth Interest Group # # JAX on GEnie # # for ANS # # P.O. Box 8231 # # SYSOP RCFB (303) 278-0364 # # Forth # # San Jose CA 95155 #
Mitch.Bradley@ENG.SUN.COM (06/25/91)
> I am just starting a project for which a small in-house language seems like > it might be a solution. Because I need to get this running rapidly, and > because the syntax/semantics question is not of overwhelming importance a > Forth-like language (eg stack based) might be suitable. Why reinvent the wheel? Why not just buy an existing Forth implementation? That way, you won't have to write all the docmentation from scratch, and you have some chance of buying trained programmers later to maintain it, if that becomes necessary. I can't imagine it costing less to develop something from scratch that it will cost to get a full license for an existing Forth implementation (a very few Forth systems are very expensive, but most Forth systems are sold for far less than what it cost to develop them, and some are given away outright.). Mitch.Bradley@Eng.Sun.COM
cwpjr@cbnewse.cb.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips) (06/27/91)
In article <9106251247.AA07801@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, Mitch.Bradley@ENG.SUN.COM writes: > > I am just starting a project for which a small in-house language seems like > > it might be a solution. Because I need to get this running rapidly, and > > because the syntax/semantics question is not of overwhelming importance a > > Forth-like language (eg stack based) might be suitable. > > Why reinvent the wheel? Why not just buy an existing Forth implementation? > That way, you won't have to write all the docmentation from scratch, and > you have some chance of buying trained programmers later to maintain it, > if that becomes necessary. I can't imagine it costing less to develop > something from scratch that it will cost to get a full license for an > existing Forth implementation (a very few Forth systems are very expensive, > but most Forth systems are sold for far less than what it cost to develop > them, and some are given away outright.). > > Mitch.Bradley@Eng.Sun.COM My worst job was in a sweat-shop run by a cheapskate who had finaaly lost his patience with his brilliant ( read get the job done eventually, but Its a good job cause I got him for half what he wanted... ) programmer and he hired me. Turns out this fellow had gotten a glimpse of FORTH and decided it would be great for this project. This guy actually implemented every technique he "learned" as he was learning them, in each stage of the "enhancement" to this project.... Anyway he implemented a global variable interrupt handler, then a C.S. grad implemented a OSI protocol ion top of that, then this guy gets a whiff of FORTH and inplements a user interface macro interpreter ( his essense of FORTH ), but where you had to write extensions in assembly and re asemble/link to test each new word(s). Then he implements this assembly library deal, then he enhanced the interpreter to scam on the global variables so the user io actually represented the current state of the system, onn and on ad nasseum. Watch out! FORTH is a "small in house language" par excellence. As Carl Malden used to say "Don't settle for anything else" Clyde