ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (03/15/90)
Date: 03-13-90 (16:50) Number: 3024 (Echo)
To: IAN GREEN Refer#: 3020
From: MICHAEL HOBSON Read: NO
Subj: Forth Bashing Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Within the limits of all that I have studied about Forth, I don't
believe it was every intended to be Standardized. Forth was created by
Chuck Moore to be a tool for solving problems. The method of problem
solving used is quite novel - you define the language best suited for
solving a particular type of problem yourself. There is no "standard"
problem, so there is no standard language suitable for solving all
"standard" problems in. Even "standard" control structures are not
always suitable for every type of problem. What if I really need a
FOR/NEXT-type construct that automatically increments one index while
decrementing another. No doubt that I can make due with some kludge
that will produce the same result, but this will impact the readability
of the intention of the kludge. In Forth, I define a construct that
does exactly what I need. There are in fact two standards for Forth and
a third on the way. There is Forth-79, Forth-83 and soon to come is
ANSI Forth. These standards define minimium word sets and control
structures, as well as all the words you need to create any other
sort of structure you might want that is not included in the minimium
standard word set. Forth allows you create any syntax or control
construct that you could possibly wish for. That is what a Forther
means by "exstensible langu language" and it is not the same as
"exstensible libraries", which is what you get with
Do your homework, Ian! Go out and buy (or borrow from a library Leo
Brodie's's books "Starting Forth" and "Thinking Forth" and read them
carefully, while testing things out yourself. You seem to think that
there is only one right way to program, only one correct and workable
philosophy and that this is handed down by some great Authority who
told you all about it with tablets of stone. Well, frankly, you are
mistaken! You are complaining about something that you don't even
understand well enough to criticize. Forth is designed to let you
construct any language you need to solve any problem. If you can't get
used to that idea, don't bother working with it.
"The Elf" [^]-[^]
\---/
Elf - A wise (?) and helpful variety of magical being.
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (03/19/90)
Date: 03-17-90 (21:29) Number: 3039 (Echo)
To: MICHAEL HOBSON Refer#: 3024
From: IAN GREEN Read: 03-17-90 (22:48)
Subj: FORTH Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
When I commented upon my confusion I didn't intend to 'bash' Forth. I
was simply pointing out how n-teen ways of doing something makes it a
bit hard to figure out what is going on. I have managed to make some
progress getting F83 to cooperate thanks to various persons on this
conference and their suggestion. On my PC I am using the F83.ZIP
package as it seems to be a fairly complete implementation of a
'standard'.
I lamented simply because I was getting a bewildering variety of
suggestion as to how to do something. Forth, because it is
comparitively easy to implement, seems to have gone the do-it-yourself
route with the result of a 'zillion' flavors of Forth being offered up.
I think I can manage now that I have a clearer idea of what makes the
language 'tick'.
Ian Green
NET/Mail : British Columbia Forth Board - Burnaby BC - (604)434-5886
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (09/09/90)
Date: 09-05-90 (10:38) Number: 3721 (Echo) To: GARY SMITH Refer#: 3716 From: STEVE PALINCSAR Read: NO Subj: WHY NOT FORTH Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE You're right, Gary. That diatribe seems to be based on about a 5 minute exposure. "Can't write a recursive forth routine"??? No faith that an argument he put on the stack will be there later? And "not fast"? Humbug. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (09/12/90)
Date: 09-09-90 (12:10) Number: 3737 (Echo)
To: GARY SMITH Refer#: 3716
From: RANDY LAWRENCE Read: NO
Subj: WHY NOT FORTH Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Your right. It sounds like he sat down in front of a FIG-Forth for
five minutes, wrote the paper on it, and then went back to his C
compiler.
Having played with C (Turboc C++) for a while, I am not convinced that
complex syntax and strong type checking is such a wonderful idea. I
would much rather program my way than the C compilers way.
Umm... did he say that Forth was not structured? ;-)
Randy
---
~ EZ 1.27 ~ I do it mmmmy wayyyyy
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: uunet!willett!dwp or dwp@willett.pgh.pa.uscwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips) (09/13/90)
In article <1712.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>, ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes: > > Your right. It sounds like he sat down in front of a FIG-Forth for > five minutes, wrote the paper on it, and then went back to his C > compiler. > > Having played with C (Turboc C++) for a while, I am not convinced that > complex syntax and strong type checking is such a wonderful idea. I > would much rather program my way than the C compilers way. > > > Randy Yup, you cant substitute tools for brains. C is no more tolerant of bad programming than FORTH. But it's easier to KNOW you have a correct implementation in FORTH. You can test for it as you go. Incremental compilers are man's best ( computing ) friend!
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (10/15/90)
Category 2, Topic 9
Message 34 Sun Oct 14, 1990
F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 20:02 CDT
Perspective
So we won't get the big head, I want to quote from the September '90 BYTE p.
234, where our group is used as a metaphor for 'completely lacking in value':
"I'm convinced that we will have personal
supercomputers. Not Crays; nobody gives a fig
about Crays on your desktop."
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/06/90)
Date: 12-02-90 (23:19) Number: 356 of 359 (Echo) To: FRANK SERGEANT Refer#: 340 From: RAY DUNCAN Read: NO Subj: 1990 FORML Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) >a senior Forth Inc person thinks Forth is not the language to >teach his child... I don't know who that person is, but I absolutely agree with him/her. I wouldn't start my child out with Lisp or APL either, for the same reasons. Let's not pretend that Forth is the answer to every possible programming situation or the tool best suited to every programmer. That kind of thinking has led to the widespread perception of Forth users as "cultists" and "religious fanatics." NET/Mail : LMI Forth Board, Los Angeles, CA (213) 306-3530 <<<>>> ----- This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process. Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/28/90)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 36 Wed Dec 26, 1990 LRWEBBER [larry] at 21:51 EST I have enjoyed reading folks comments about forth. I am learning this language thanks to F-PC version 3.5 at home and support on one simulation program at work with HS FORTH. I also program in 'C' and assembler at work. My only comment. I have had some REAL problems with commercial micro-computer 'C' languages doing embedded control applications..usually had to go to assembler to work around the 'C' bugs. So far, (and believe me I'm no forth guru) I have had no problems getting what I need done DONE by using normal constructs of forth language. I am trying slowly and patiently to educate my fellow software engineers at work (mostly computer science) that there IS merit to forth. One other forth type and I are even thinking of holding an informal in house forth tutorial using real problems from work as the examples. I am more than a little leary (being so new to forth) but feel that it may be worth it. There's not much other forth support to draw on in this area of the country. We'll see how this works out. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (12/29/90)
Category 2, Topic 9
Message 37 Thu Dec 27, 1990
D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 23:21 EST
Re: LRWEBBER [larry]
> I have had no problems...forth language
I've got a few for ya. <grin>
However, seriously, I've programmed in a few languages (pre C days) and I've
always had to "work around the bugs". In Forth it is rarely necessary. I'm
working at the very heart of Forth right now, and now I "work around the bugs"
in the computer itself. Coming from a comp. sci. & data processing
environment, that has sure been a drastic change in mind-set. Sure, there are
times that Forth fights me, but now I just fix the problem (i.e. modify Forth)
rather than try to figure out how to get around the problem.
Much better way of doing things I say! DaR
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author
using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (01/02/91)
Category 2, Topic 9
Message 39 Mon Dec 31, 1990
LRWEBBER [larry] at 18:18 EST
Brad, I am from southern Indiana; There is/was a FIG chapter in Ft. Wayne
which is about 200 miles north but none here.
I have been told by another forth "burnout" on another board that I will be
impressed with forth..for awhile. Then, I'm told, as the size and
sophistication of my tasks increase, I would loose my enthusiasm while trying
to figure out where in the hell an unexpected stack parameter causes things to
bomb.
I don't dispute forth requires certain attention to detail, but from what I've
seen so far, it's not insurmountable. At work, on multi programmer jobs, we
all do unit module testing of any code we write or modify. This includes,
among other things, testing every possible branch of code. This is nothing
new. What I find refreshing is that forth allows one to far more easily
perform testing of a module (word) in isolation. Given proper design and
documentation, I've had no problem yet with the stack containing unexpected or
no data/parameters.
The biggest problem I see with forth being accepted in a large way in industry
is:
1. lack of familiarity with forth from computer science and engineering
software professionals
2. lack of ANSI standard for forth (soon to be reolved)
3. a reputation of being unmaintainable and encryptic
4. not easily interfacing to commercial libraries of graphics, etc.
I am making these remarks because I am viewing forth as more of a general
purpose language. 'C' language, for example, has literally thousands of
library routines comercially available (some of dubvious quality too).
While I PERSONALLY like forth, if I were the big brass, I'd have trouble
justifying a large and highly visible project for forth.
By the way, I work at Cummins Electronics, a subsidiary of CUMMINS engine
company. We make electronically controlled fuel systems for the diesel
industry. We do most of our stuff in 'C' and assembler. I also maintain a
vehicle simulation on a PC with digital and analog boards to exercise our
prototype systems. This simulation is done in HS forth. This is our (my
company and myself) first serious application in forth.
Regards.
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author
using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwpcwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips) (01/03/91)
In article <2189.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>, ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes: I deleted till here... > sophistication of my tasks increase, I would loose my enthusiasm while trying > to figure out where in the hell an unexpected stack parameter causes things to > bomb. I'm glad you are not swayed by the burnout. This is simply the classic case of a "motorhead", ie unsafe at any speed. You don't end up in this situation in FORTH unless you put yourself there, as you state below... > > I don't dispute forth requires certain attention to detail, but from what I've > seen so far, it's not insurmountable. At work, on multi programmer jobs, we > all do unit module testing of any code we write or modify. This includes, > among other things, testing every possible branch of code. This is nothing > new. What I find refreshing is that forth allows one to far more easily > perform testing of a module (word) in isolation. Given proper design and > documentation, I've had no problem yet with the stack containing unexpected or > no data/parameters. Yes FORTH is an amplifier. Good techniques really shine! > > The biggest problem I see with forth being accepted in a large way in industry > is: > > 1. lack of familiarity with forth from computer science and engineering > software professionals > 2. lack of ANSI standard for forth (soon to be reolved) > 3. a reputation of being unmaintainable and encryptic > 4. not easily interfacing to commercial libraries of graphics, etc. > > > I am making these remarks because I am viewing forth as more of a general > purpose language. 'C' language, for example, has literally thousands of > library routines comercially available (some of dubvious quality too). > I like your list, and if we include proper scoping of the Vendors implementation TO THE APPLICATION we leave little left but good techniques and mgmt to get the "benefits" of FORTH. > vehicle simulation on a PC with digital and analog boards to exercise our > prototype systems. This simulation is done in HS forth. This is our (my > company and myself) first serious application in forth. >a I've been curious about HS FORTH. I've used a FORTH that allows one to use "c" data structures. But I've always felt that the better "c" libraries were a cheap (sometimes) and dirty ( usually ) way to get a bunch of related "words" with which to rapid prototype an app. This vocabualry will either prove itself well factored and useful or it will point up it's deficiencies. Any comments on this or how seemingly tyour simulator ( with special I/O ) seems especially suited to FORTH would be welcome. Thanks, Clyde
koopman@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Philip Koopman) (01/03/91)
> Message 39 Mon Dec 31, 1990 > LRWEBBER [larry] at 18:18 EST > > I have been told by another forth "burnout" on another board that I will be > impressed with forth..for awhile. Then, I'm told, as the size and > sophistication of my tasks increase, I would loose my enthusiasm while trying > to figure out where in the hell an unexpected stack parameter causes things to > bomb. In my experience, I'd say 80% of my Forth programming errors result in stack imbalances. Fortunately, stack imbalances are usually pretty simple to track down compared to, say, an improperly initialized variable in another language. Sure, the "bombing" is often more catastrophic -- but isn't that better than a lurking bug that surfaces only after you're in production? > By the way, I work at Cummins Electronics, a subsidiary of CUMMINS engine > company. Manfred Peshke, who is a Forth consultant working in New Hampshire, does a lot of work with Cummins Engine, all in Forth. Phil Koopman koopman@greyhound.ece.cmu.edu Arpanet 2525A Wexford Run Rd. Wexford, PA 15090 *** this space for rent ***
userENY7@mts.ucs.UAlberta.CA (Bill Burris) (01/04/91)
The problems with FORTH as I see it: There are not enough users of FORTH. None of the machines we buy are shipped with FORTH. Managememt and the people with the money are not intrested in leaving the beaten path. Most projects here are one of a kind. The prototype is used to do the job until it is no longer needed. This makes it diffecult to try new ways of doing things. The FORTH I have used on my Apple, uses screens instead of regular files. This is one of the feathers of FORTH which should be forgoten. If FORTH becomes as popular as C, with a standard implementation, I will be able to justify spending other peoples money on it. For now I will do my work on the NeXT using Objective C, C++, C, and 56001 assembly unless I can get a version of FORTH which works well with NeXTStep and the DSP. This FORTH must be compatiable with Mach and be able to call code written in the other languages and be called by the other languages. This FORTH implementation needs to be cheap enough that I could purchace it myself and I would have to learn to used it on my own time. If FORTH becomes as widely used as other languages then I would be able to spend several hundred dollars of other peoples money to purchace the package and learn to use it during office hours.
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (01/04/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 40 Thu Jan 03, 1991 NMORGENSTERN at 20:41 EST >I have been told by another forth "burnout" on another board >that I will be impressed with forth..for awhile. Then, I'm >told, as the size and sophistication of my tasks increase, I >would loose my enthusiasm while trying to figure out where >in the hell an unexpected stack parameter causes things to >bomb. I found your note interesting, especially the above comment. It confirms what I have felt for a long time: Forth's biggest virute is its stack, and its biggest fault is its stack. Variables are, to a large extent, unnecessary in Forth because the stack can be used instead. Some programmers take this to an extreme, and pride themselves on never using variables at all. They are the ones that fall into the trap that you mention! I say: Count the ratio of words that do something to those that juggle the stack (SWAP DUP ROT etc) If that ratio falls below about 4:1, you had better start using some variables for temporaries. Many Forths now have LOCALs which are even better for the purpose. One of the functions of this round table is to provide persons like yourself, who live far from the supposed centers of Forth, with a forum to communicate and to get help. Mike Christopherson in Dayton Ohio, has been programming a commercial printer driver. He is here often on our Thursday and Sunday round tables. ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (01/10/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 44 Wed Jan 09, 1991 F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 01:04 CST >Then, I'm told, as the size and sophistication of my tasks increase, >I would loose my enthusiasm while trying to figure out where in the >hell an unexpected stack parameter causes things to bomb. Larry, I agree with you that the above complaint is not valid. I certainly haven't found it to be so. The beauty of Forth (one of them) is that it is so modular that it is easy to locate any word that "acts up." Of course, if one doesn't pay attention to Forth style and proper factoring (if he writes long "procedures" instead of short words) he shouldn't be blaming Forth as he hasn't tried it! Please be sure to see my note in cat 6 topic 16 about "forth engines." (Actually, gasoline engines.) -- Frank *L ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (01/10/91)
Category 2, Topic 9
Message 45 Wed Jan 09, 1991
F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 01:05 CST
Clyde Phillips writes
> I've been curious about HS FORTH.
That reminds me of something I've been planning to complain about. Now's
as good a time as any. I've never used or even seen HS/FORTH. However, they
have a startlingly entertaining ad in Forth Dimensions. At one point they
criticize public domain versions of Forth. Then they say
"We don't shortchange you with promises. We provide implemented
functions to help you complete your application quickly. And we ask
you not to shortchange us by trying to save a few bucks using
inadequate public domain or pirate versions. We worked hard coming
up with the ideas that you now see sprouting up in other Forths."
It seems to me they are making a charge of some sort of impropriety against
unnamed other Forths (or their vendors/creators). A charge that does not
seem to be substantiated in any way in the ad (see p. 15 of the Jan/Feb '91
Forth Dimensions). It seems in poor taste to me - especially in an ad.
Further, I've seen their ad somewhere else, a non-Forth publication, where
they showed the good sense of omitting the part about "And we ask you not to
shortchange us ..."
Is HS saying that they never used any ideas that came from others - not
even from, say, Chuck Moore? I'd find that damn hard to believe, especially
since they are using the word "Forth"! Further, are they saying that if an
idea appeared in HS/FORTH no one else has the right to implement that idea,
in his own way, in his own Forth? That would seem to me to be an very anti-
Forth philosophy.
And, when they admonish us not to save a few bucks, just what are they
talking about? Their production level version is only $495. If F-PC or
VanNorman's optimized 32 bit eforth for the 8086 or F-83 or Guy Kelly's Forth
or Mitch Bradley's Forth or BBL or Pygmy satisfies us I hardly see how we are
shortchanging Harvard Softworks! Of course they didn't name the above
Forths. They merely said "inadequate public domain or pirate versions." I
had, though, the feeling they meant to include every Forth in the world other
than HS/FORTH.
On the other hand, I've never heard a bad word about the quality of
HS/FORTH. It is probably an excellent Forth. It may well be worth the
money. If so, I think it should compete on its merits. It should exhort
people to buy it because it is superior, not because people OWE it (in some
vague fashion) to Harvard Softworks to buy it.
As I mentioned, they seem to bring this point up only to the loyal Forth
community (re the Forth Dimensions ad) and not in their general advertising.
I think that is rather like biting the hand that recommends (or fails to
recommend) them.
Thanks for reminding me.
-- Frank
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author
using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (01/12/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 46 Thu Jan 10, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 07:32 EST Larry, my condolences; I learned Forth in Peoria, IL in the late '70s, so I can sympathize. Fortunately we now have GEnie. I agree with your analysis (and the many replies) -- IF you design and document your code properly, there is no problem. I have pointed out to some prospective Forthers that they had better damn well learn good programming practice, out of self defense! (A bonus: my experience with Forth has made me a much better C programmer.) I find myself factoring my code into many short words, with detailed stack comments and a prose description for each word. And I, like you, find that module testing is easier in Forth than any other language I've used. (I could tell horror stories about testing a B- tree written in C.) BTW, let me stick in a plug for the many Forth journals and conferences, any of whom would be delighted to hear you write/talk about your vehicle simulation in Forth. "Success is a great deodorant." - Brad ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (01/16/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 47 Mon Jan 14, 1991 F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 02:17 CST MB>I wouldn't get too upset about what Jim Callahan says in his HS MB>Forth advertising literature. The guy is just trying ... . . MB>Certainly, the implication that PD systems somehow "ripped off" his MB>work is a bit extreme. I shrug it off as a unfortunate statement MB>made in a moment of frustration. Lord knows I've made my share of MB>those. Yes, haven't we all (at least I have)! No, I'm not upset. It provided me with some entertainment. You do bring up an interesting point. I can see that a Forth vendor could feel his business is being hurt by the plethora of good PD and shareware Forths available. (And, if I can say the following with the greatest of good humor and no offense intended:) Rather like prostitutes being unhappy because the ordinary girls of the town are "giving it away." I don't think he has a leg to stand on to say the PD, shareware, & inexpensive Forths vendors have no right to sell or distribute their creations. If not for Chuck's generosity in not locking up Forth and "Forth" with patents, trademarks, and copyrights possibly even HS Forth could not be sold. I think it is very possible that CM and Forth Inc have benefitted from having a less than 100% share of a larger market (rather than 100% of a very small market). To go a step further, someone suggested that if Forth Inc had placed polyForth in the public domain at the right time (probably too late now) it would be *the* standard, etc etc. Lots of people would be using Forth other than Forth Inc, but they might get considerably more consulting work because of the extra wide spread of their name, etc. However, I think HS would be in a stronger position to say to the PD, shareware, & inexpensive Forth vendors: "Look, you are hurting *yourself* by giving it away. Here's why ... Here's what you should do instead ... Yes, you have a perfect right to do so, but I suggest you do not, as you will be better off, because of the preceeding reasons." I think it would take some strong arguments in place of the elipses to be convincing, but I'd cheerfully listen to them. (I hope you've noticed I'm including your Forth in this "PD, shareware, & inexpensive" category. Look at all the damage you are doing to HS, Forth Inc, LMI, etc. by offering it for only $50!) His arguments might go something like this: By selling your Forth so cheaply you threaten to put me out of business. If you back off (or raise your price enormously) you allow me a larger profit margin. I'll use much of this for increased advertising in the main stream computing magazines. This will so enlarge the market for and acceptance of Forth that you will make so much more money from your consulting (preferably using HS Forth) that you will be far better off in the long run than if you continue to sell your measly little Forth. In addition, because only high-priced Forths will be offered, Forth's reputation will improve because people will say "if it costs that much, it's got to be good." On the other hand, if you and the others continue to dilute the currently very small market you'll drive me and the other real vendors out of business, no national advertising will be done, there will be no acceptance of Forth at all, and then where will you be? (He did include a related argument in the ad - that our patronage of the inexpensive systems was a drain on resources, slowing down the process of his bringing us even better tools.) Obviously, not everyone is persuaded by the above arguments. Perhaps better ones could be put forth. -- Frank ----- This message came from GEnie via willett. You cannot Reply to the author using email. Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, whatever). Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (02/27/91)
Category 2, Topic 9
Message 48 Tue Feb 26, 1991
ATFURMAN [Alan F.] at 01:49 PST
For fast relief from stack balance headaches, try this:
After writing a definition with before-and-after stack comments (you DO use
before-and-after stack comments, don't you?...of course you do) read through
the definition while thinking of, or mumbling, the stack depth as you read
each word within the definition. The final stack depth should agree with the
"after" stack comment.
Example:
: foo ( n1 n2 -- n3)
* 3 + x @ / dup . ;
Here is how the read-through would go (start with depth of 2):
* 3 + x @ / dup .
"two" "one" "two" "one" "two" "two" "one" "two" "one"
Starting with a two-deep stack, we end with a one-deep stack, and conclude
that the word's behavior conforms to the stack comment.
When there are conditional branches or loops, this becomes trickier to do--but
even more worth the trouble, too.
-----
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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (03/04/91)
Category 2, Topic 9
Message 49 Thu Feb 28, 1991
M.HAWLEY at 21:41 EST
I agree with this method, but take it even farther. I have gotten in the
habbit of writing in a verticle style with comments on the right. I show the
contents ofboth both the data and return stacks. example: : F* ( m1 e1 m2
e2 -- mp ep ) \ product of fnumbers
rot \ m1 m2 e2 e1 -- 3rd to top * rstack *
+ \ m1 m2 es -- sum of exponents
>r \ m1 m2 -- save sum to rstack es
2dup \ m1 m2 m1 m2 -- - Well, you get the idea. This is a very slow
way to write code, but I have had a lot of things work exactly right the FIRST
time doing it this way. In the long run that's faster. It also makes it very
easy to look at old code and reverse engineer what I was thinking about at the
time I wrote it. Let's make FORTH a read/write language - ( not write only ).
...meh...
-----
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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (03/30/91)
Date: 03-15-91 (20:57) Number: 1505 of 1557 To: GARY SMITH Refer#: NONE From: CHRIS WATERS Read: NO Subj: WHAT'S WRONG WITH FORTH? Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) Reply to: cbbrowne csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne (055908)) Subject: Re: Forth in CS > BEGIN / REPEAT / WHILE / UNTIL / AGAIN > - The combo's of these words are not unique to Forth The NAMES may not be, but some of the structures that have been built using these words are not. Don't mistake the name for the actual function. I have yet to see a structure like: BEGIN WHILE WHILE UNTIL ELSE-WHILE ELSE-WHILE END-WHILE In any language but Forth. While I may not use a structure like this myself (!) I have seen it done in Forth, and could not really see it easily implemented in any other language except, perhaps, LISP. A trivial example, perhaps, but still significant. > JUMP Tables/Vectored Words > - Have been used in Assembly Language for years... Sure they have, but hardly as true language STRUCTURES! I have seen some very powerful and complex structures built in Forth that use various forms of tables unlike anything I've seen in any other language. Also, Forth lets you define all of the above; something the simple Algol derived languages do NOT! Personally, I see elements in Forth that should be fascinating to CS people; stuff as different and fascinating, from a purely academic point of view, as LISP. If you think that CS people are not interested in Forth, you're sadly mistaken. SOME CS people may not be interested in Forth, but I feel this is their loss. Try UCSD. Last I heard (which was several years ago) they were doing some pretty interesting stuff with Forth. Traditional Forth, with its "threaded strings" is a close cousin of LISP, at least in my eyes. And a simple colon definition itself is an interesting data structure. And one unlike anything found in any other language. You could probably cobble up something similar in LISP, using a specialized EVAL, just as you can write a List interpreter in Forth. But this hardly means that Forth is of no interest to CS people. If you want CS people interested in Forth, look to the LISP crowd. I think you'll find that many of them have been quietly using Forth (and being fascinated by it) for years. --- Tag 1.3 * Cockroaches rule the Earth. Pass it on. PCRelay:IDCBBS -> #918 4.10 IDC BBS ~ Alameda, CA ~ (415) 865-7115 ~ HST <<<>>> ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (03/30/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 79 Wed Mar 27, 1991 ELLIOTT.C at 13:32 EST I find Mitch's discussion of infix/subroutine styles in various languages quite interesting. As to ": 1 2 ;" : sure, it's nonsense, but I wouldn't say the same about ": 3 1 ;". ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (03/30/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 87 Thu Mar 28, 1991 ATFURMAN [Alan F.] at 22:31 PST Charles Eaker, replying to Dave Lowry, writes: > > It just seems to me that Forth is too "powerful" for its own good. > > Forth may be too dangerous for your tastes, which means, I suppose, > that you may feel insecure in some way when you use it. And then there's always the Royal Hospital for People Who Redefine 1 To Be 2. :-) =========================================================================== "This disclaimer is strictly the author's personal opinion." ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (04/06/91)
Date: 04-01-91 (17:07) Number: 1716 of 1724 To: GARY SMITH Refer#: 1632 From: ANIL RODRIX Read: NO Subj: WHAT'S WRONG WITH FORTH? Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) re : 1 2 ; In several Forth's when this definition is accepted it is a tad short of 'merrily ' ; they give you a message saying ALREADY DEFINED or NOT UNIQUE or some such, which is enough warning for me. One should know enuf to use a redefined 1 if one does it. PCRelay:PROPC -> #288 RelayNet (tm) 4.10 Pittsburgh ProPC BBS (412) 321-6645 <<<>>> ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (04/06/91)
Date: 04-03-91 (07:05) Number: 1746 of 1747 (Echo) To: ANIL RODRIX Refer#: 1716 From: STEVE WHEELER Read: NO Subj: (RE)DEFINITION OF NUMBERS Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+) Regarding redefined numbers ... When I first ported F83 to Vesta's SBC's, I did a straightforward port with minimal changes. Among the words in the FORTH vocabulary were 0, 1, 2, and 3. I made a special revision just to pull those words out of the dictionary because of a problem they caused with a customer's code ... their action when entered in the input stream differs from 4, 5, 6, etc. in that there is no effect on DPL. I consider this sufficient reason to distrust any numbers defined as part of the dictionary. Certainly, there can be reasons for doing such things, but not just for convenience and saving space. If you need such constants to save space when you compile your kernel, make them headerless (I did). You then not only save space in your kernel, but you don't confuse your users. - wheels NET/Mail : RCFB Golden, CO (303) 278-0364 VESTA & Denver FIG for Forth! <<<>>> ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (04/14/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 90 Sat Apr 13, 1991 F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 13:09 CDT Forth is sometimes critized for its lack of data typing. Without refering to Forth specifically, an article in the Apr/May '91 issue of PC Techniques points out the seriousness of this problem. . The article *Typing Your Data* by Gary W. Sims starts off saying "Have you ever heard a spreadsheet played through a digital stereo? As crazy as this might seem it could happen to you if your data is not properly typed." . This is a danger I had not previously considered, but, obviously, the risk is so great that I dare not continue to use Forth. I am immediately switching to Ada and suggest you do the same before it is too late. . -- Frank ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
sss3@ukc.ac.uk (S.S.Sturrock) (04/15/91)
In article <2630.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes: >Category 2, Topic 9 >Message 90 Sat Apr 13, 1991 >F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 13:09 CDT > > This is a danger I had not previously considered, but, obviously, the risk >is so great that I dare not continue to use Forth. I am immediately >switching to Ada and suggest you do the same before it is too late. I assume you missed the smiley by accident. As for Ada, I wouldn't give it a second's thought, but then I am an OCCAM programmer and somewhat biased! Has anyone got a version of Forth for a transputer? Shane Sturrock, Biol Lab. Canterbury, Kent, Great Britain. sss3@ukc.ac.uk
S47852EF@ETSUACAD.BITNET ("Frank C. Earl") (04/18/91)
> This is a danger I had not previously considered, but, obviously, the risk >is so great that I dare not continue to use Forth. I am immediately >switching to Ada and suggest you do the same before it is too late. The danger is not as obvious as you mentioned- you would write in code that protects against such abuses- in the case of a spreadsheet being played over one's stereo is an extreme and VERY remote case- if you feed any computer invalid data it's gonna barf out; and ADA does help some but isn't the silver bullet that the DoD and the proponents of the language have made it out to be! (Take it from this ADA programmer- ADA's overrated and is hideously expensive! The cheapest *validated* compiler is in excess of $1000!! It can catch type violations during development but to have type violations caught during run-time pesents the dual problem of the overhead of making those explicit type checks and what you do in the case of a type violation that you hadn't planned for (Yes, this is *VERY* possible)... Usually, ADA code runs slower than comparable C, Pascal, or Modula-2 code; and in the case of the invalid data type exception that wasn't covered, you end up with the computer usually exits out to whatever OS you have and goes on from there- which as often as not is as bad has having the data error in the first place...) And in the case of that example you gave Frank- the author was not mentioning that ALL programming languages treat data off the diskette in the same manner and that any data that makes sense to the language run-time will be interpreted as that and if you have a data file that looks like it's okay to ADA and isn't the correctly typed data, then ADA *WILL NOT* protect you any better than C, Forth, BASIC, FORTRAN, Modula-2, Pascal, or any other language you care to mention to us. The example neglects to mention that the data type was binary sound info- as plain and simple as that; if the spreadsheet looks like valid sound data format information, then it's going to play it just the same as if it came from a DAT or a CD... The way information is dealt with is NOT typed- we simply impose an IDEA of types on the binary values in the machine in the Language that we use to tell the computer what we want done... Computers, in general, don't know Adam from data types- they don't care; they do EXACTLY what we tell them to do. ADA only keeps the commpon type violations from occuring for inexperienced programmers- it doesn't keep the problem of invalid data being fed to the machine that looks okay to the program- you have to code for that (Quite extensively in many cases...) in *ANY* language. Frank, do yourself and the entire Forth community a favor, please don't panic and switch over to to ADA just because it is VERY strongly typed- in reality, it doesn't help much except when you go looking for some subtle and most gross programming errors (As the DoD is now finding out- they are now letting C be done in MANY cases... They aren't shouting "you must do *EVERYTHING* in ADA if you do stuff for US!" anymore... It *WASN'T* what they thought it was...) (Getting off of soapbox... :) Frank C. Earl, Master's of Computer Science program, East Texas State Univ. Internet : s47852ef@etsuacad.etsu.edu BITNET : s47852ef@etsuacad US Mail : 409 Laurel Greenville, TX 75401
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (04/18/91)
Date: 04-15-91 (19:06) Number: 1896 of 1896
To: FRANK SERGEANT Refer#: 1875
From: CRAIG TRELEAVEN Read: NO
Subj: WHAT'S WRONG WITH FORTH? Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: FORTH (58) Read Type: GENERAL (+)
-> The article *Typing Your Data* by Gary W. Sims starts off saying
-> "Have you ever heard a spreadsheet played through a digital stereo?
-> As crazy as this might seem it could happen to you if your data is
-> not properly typed." . This is a danger I had not previously
-> considered, but, obviously, the risk is so great that I dare not
-> continue to use Forth. I am immediately switching to Ada and
-> suggest you do the same before it is too late. . -- Frank
And I'm sure not going to use a spreadsheet while the stereo is
running, anymore!
Craig
PCRelay:CRS -> #0 RelayNet (tm)
4.10 Canada Remote Systems * Toronto, Ontario
<<<>>>
-----
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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/13/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 94 Fri May 10, 1991 R.CAVANAUGH [BobC] at 22:54 MDT I have to get on my soapbox on this one: 1) I feel one of the reasons "C" is so popular now is the advent of affordable packages (<$100). I personally own Turbo C (and C++), LetsC, and Mix C. While Turbo is the only one I would use professionally, it has allowed a lot of neophytes to enter this world. 2) Limiting a language by high price is what I consider IBM and Microslop mentality. That particular idea of "maximize the bucks" will result in shooting yourself in the foot. One of the reasons I started looking at forth was the clear and open invitation BY the availability of PD programs. 3) I think of forth programmers as creative, knowledgable people dedicated to solving problems, not tunnel-visioned bean counters. The whole philosophy as I see it of forth is sharing, getting the job done, providing the "atmosphere" if you will. If forth does hit the mainstream (something I hope for), I would like to think that it retains this attitude. Learning the tack that HSForth advertisements are taking gives me pause to think... -- Bobc ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/13/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 95 Sun May 12, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 11:33 EDT Bob C: yes, and no. I made a similar plea at last year's Rochester Forth conference. It was the availability of fig-Forth that got me started in Forth, and I feel the need for a low-cost and preferably public-domain implementation to let people get their feet wet. C.H.Ting feels likewise, which is why we now have eForth. People will spend big bucks for a C compiler because they know it's safe. It's sanctioned, sanitized, and officially approved, and they "know" they can use it to do their projects (whatever they are). Forth, on the other hand, is an unknown, screwball language, and any newcomer who buys it for a project is taking a risk. HOWEVER... the fact remains that the P-D Forths are not what I would call "professional quality." I hit this head on when my client finally allowed me to use Forth in a project. I discovered that there was not a single Forth package which I would not be embarassed to show them, and which I felt they could use in my absence. I couldn't sell their chief engineer -- an accomplished assembly language programmer -- on F83, and certainly not the on F83 metacompiler! As far as I know, there is only one P-D Forth with anything like the kind of "polish" exhibited in Turbo C, and that's F-PC. I don't use F-PC, for several reasons, not the least which is that I'm programming single-chip 8-bitters and not IBM PCs. (In case you're wondering, I finally found a commercial package which met my and my client's needs, from MicroProcessor Engineering in the U.K. It cost $1700. Expensive, but worth it.) I haven't read these infamous HSForth ads, but from what I've heard, they're a plea to a) support developers of professional Forth systems, and b) not rip off commercial code. I have no problem with this. I used P-D Forths for years, and still do; but lately I've come to appreciate that there are folks out there scraping out a living by producing professional quality tools. One of the great things about Forth is that you have this choice. - Brad Brad Rodriguez | brad%candice@maccs.uucp (God willing) B.RODRIGUEZ2 on GEnie | brad%candice@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca "Shoes for industry!" | bradford@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (archaic) ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/13/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 96 Sun May 12, 1991 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 20:56 EDT Re: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] > (In case you're wondering, I finally found a commercial package > which met my and my client's needs, from MicroProcessor > Engineering in the U.K. It cost $1700. Expensive, but worth it.) Brad, can you tell us what those requirements were? Since I am working on what is probably _the_ most expensive Forths ($3K a pop), I am VERY interested in knowing what you all think would make it worth that kind of money. You obviously found something in MPE Forth that got you're client to spend half what we are asking. What was it, and if it would have been possible, what would it have taken for him to spend twice that amount? Maybe I can "fix" some of the problems? 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/13/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 97 Sun May 12, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 21:59 EDT Funny you should ask, Dennis. Last June or thereabouts I wrote what amounted to an op-ed piece for Paul Frenger and the SigForth newsletter, entitled "Why I Don't Buy Forth." Someday he may run that piece, but obviously I've modified my views since then. I actually cornered Elizabeth at last year's Rochester conference to talk about my biggest problem: I need to deliver clear, royalty-free title to any software that I write, and I need to use the Forth compiler layer as part of my application. Forth Inc. and LMI both require royalty fees if the compiler layer is to be included. MPE allows the compiler layer to be included as long as the end-user does not see a Forth programming environment; i.e., I can use the Forth compiler to create special-purpose parsers and text interpreters, and I can include a Forth "back door" for maintenance and field service uses. Both of these are important. (By the way, MMS has the same intransigent policy about their compiler layer -- I asked -- but that was an academic question, since MMS doesn't make cross compilers.) I hinted at requirement #2 in my previous posting: I need to deliver a maintainable package to a group of assembly-language programmers. They don't have, and mustn't need, a Forth guru on staff. The polyForth target compiler was the first _good_ metacompiler I ever used, and is still one of my favorites -- but you know as well as I that some advanced Forth knowledge is needed to be able to use it effectively. The MPE compiler is, IMHO, much more of a "cookbook" compiler, and much better documented. It also allows the use of text files; and I didn't at all relish the thought of selling screens and a brand-new editor (and way of thinking) to these guys. On top of that, the MPE compiler is more "glitzy" -- or perhaps I should say "professional looking." It's sad that this should make a difference, but it does. Interestingly, they achieve this mostly thorough a shell program which is wrapped around their otherwise- ordinary-looking tools. (Rather like Turbo C, come to think of it.) I must admit, it makes the compiler easier to use. Finally, I was attracted by their "Umbilical Forth" -- or, in Forth Inc jargon, ChipForth -- for an interactive cross-development environment. (You may recall that I gave a paper on this topic at Rochester last year.) At that, it was a long uphill battle to convince my client to spend even $1700 for a compiler. I think if I had tried to hit them for $4K (the last price I heard for the full target polyForth environment) it would have been a complete "non-starter". A real pity, because I still feel quite a bit of loyalty to good old polyForth. - Brad ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/14/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 98 Mon May 13, 1991 R.CAVANAUGH [BobC] at 19:02 MDT Brad, All good points. Thanks for the views. With the idea of professional packages in mind, do you consider Turbo C a professional quality tool? (assume the Pro package if you want.) I payed 150.00 for this. Why are professional 10X or more this price? Are there packages available in the 100-500 dollar range? -- BobC ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/15/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 99 Tue May 14, 1991 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 00:31 EDT Thanks for the thoughts Brad! Please let me know if your article is ever run in SIGForth. I'd enjoy reading it. > I need to deliver clear, royalty-free title to any software that > I write, and I need to use the Forth compiler layer as part of my > application. The compiler layer is where the line has been drawn, but from the sounds of things, it sounds like more of a problem of semantics than a technical one. It doesn't sound as if you need colon (:), do you need CREATE or just which part of the compiler are you using? > I need to deliver a maintainable package to a group of assembly- > language programmers. Who does the maintenance, you or your clients? The pF target compiler would most certainly need a shell, and we have not written one yet, but otherwise I could see how the the "tough" stuff could be buryed. You're right though, our documentation is written for experts and the user shell is pratically non- existant. We can work on that. > It also allows the use of text files; and I didn't at all relish > the thought of selling screens and a brand-new editor (and way of > thinking) to these guys. Absolutely! I recognize our deficency there. It might not even be that hard of a sell internally anymore. I actually haven't even tried to _sell_ it yet. We've already got it on our "wish" list, but it probably won't come until we revamp the entire user interface (:Something we all know that _some_ Forth's need:). > ... more "glitzy" -- or perhaps I should say "professional > looking." Of course this makes a difference! Bells and whistles are what sell a product to the mass market. We have not gone after that market yet. However, I think there might be a little bit of money there. It probably will never be big enough to support the development effort that real "glitz" is going the take, but there might be enough to help support our engineering market emphasis. Both markets are important, and we only addressing the needs of one right now. > I was attracted by their "Umbilical Forth" Yes, that "utility" is an important side of our business, and we are giving the chipFORTH compilers a high degree of emphasis on both the marketing and engineering sides. > At that, it was a long uphill battle to convince my client to > spend even $1700 for a compiler. I think if I had tried to hit > them for $4K (the last price I heard for the full target > polyForth environment) it would have been a complete "non- > starter". and from BobC: > Are there packages available in the 100-500 dollar range? Good feedback, but there's not much I've been able to do about it. I'd love to sell a $100 system (and we did for a time), but it is difficult making it cost effective for us to maintain it. picoFORTH was an interesting "experiment", and not many people updated to the full blown system after they got it. Still, if it could just "fall out" of our normal maintenance, it might be something to consider again. In your case Brad, you needed the target compiler which would obviously cost a lot more. Did you need the system nucleus, or could you have gotten by with a canned image of it? > A real pity, because I still feel quite a bit of loyalty to good > old polyForth. Thanks for the loyalty Brad, and _thank you_ for the input. I hope we can start putting it to good use. Maybe someday, you will be able to use pF on some other project. 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/17/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 100 Wed May 15, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 21:28 EDT To Bob Cavanaugh: I don't use C professionally, and the only PC C compiler I've used is Turbo C (basic package), so it's hard for me to judge. I also have difficulty distinguishing deficiencies in the language from deficiencies in one particular implementation. Certainly I consider Turbo C polished and well integrated. On the other hand, I've run into memory limits with some rather small C programs, so I probably wouldn't count on Turbo C for a large project. I assume your question was "why are professional _Forths_ 10X or more this price?" Easy. There's 100X or more customers for C. Software has a big "fixed cost" and a small "variable cost," so economies of scale really apply. To Dennis Ruffer: 1. For the command line parser, all we need is the text interpreter, but for field service, we really want to have the compiler as well. Why are colon and CREATE so sacred? 2. My clients do the maintenance. A shell and a good cookbook would probably do wonders. 3. If by "nucleus" you mean the source code for the underlying Forth system, no, we don't need it. The MPE compiler comes with complete source for the target compiler, which is loaded on top of a canned nucleus. So, we can modify the target compiler -- and we've had occasion to. Hope this helps. - Brad ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/17/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 101 Fri May 17, 1991 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 01:07 EDT Re: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] > Why are colon and CREATE so sacred? CREATE is not much but given colon it is a simple matter to recreate every part of Forth. Given some very basic knowledge about Forth, you could recreate the entire development system (people have done it). I didn't create the "line", but I can understand why it is there. Your other points are well taken. Stay tuned! > Hope this helps. It does! Thanks! 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne (055908)) (05/17/91)
In article <2781.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes: >Category 2, Topic 9 >Message 101 Fri May 17, 1991 >D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 01:07 EDT > >Re: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] > > > Why are colon and CREATE so sacred? > >CREATE is not much but given colon it is a simple matter to recreate every >part of Forth. Given some very basic knowledge about Forth, you could >recreate the entire development system (people have done it). I didn't create >the "line", but I can understand why it is there. But isn't the REAL point of having a full-featured development system like PolyFORTH the idea that you have the TOOLS to create Forth applications? Sure, given CREATE and : you can in principle recreate the development system, but isn't the development system code LEFT OUT of the final target application code? If so, then it means that people "recreating" the system have to in fact REWRITE it from scratch. Or am I misunderstanding the nature of PolyForth? -- Christopher Browne cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca University of Ottawa Master of System Science Program
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/20/91)
Category 2, Topic 9
Message 103 Sun May 19, 1991
D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 15:36 EDT
Re: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne (055908))
> Or am I misunderstanding the nature of PolyForth?
No Chris, it sounds like you understand what it takes to actually "rip off" pF
given : but as to the nature of the beast, well I'm still having fun with that
one. :)
polyFORTH, as it stands today, the environment on top of pF is not nearly as
significant as the environment underneith it. The fine tuning that has gone
into the nucleus is much more rigorous than the tuning that goes into the
electives. If anything could be pointed at to represent the "nature" of a
given pF, it would be how the nucleus has been put together.
Given a way to make new definitions (i.e. extend the "development"
environment), then the one of the things you can make is a decompiler. Sure,
it is going to require some work to do it, but the point is that it _can_ be
done.
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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwpForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/28/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 104 Sat May 25, 1991 B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] at 13:22 EDT Yes, CREATE and colon can be reinvented. (Certainly I've had to write a few versions of each.) But the problem is, can Forth Inc. claim that "my" CREATE and colon are in fact derived from theirs? This is particularly nasty because I would have Forth Inc.'s source code for CREATE and colon, just not the rights to use them (without royalty, that is). A strong case could probably be made, since I have this source code and can't help but see it and use it, that I have been "influenced" by it .... i.e., that I couldn't help borrowing bits of it for my own CREATE and colon. It's arguments like this that bring money into Lotus and Apple. Now, I'm not saying that Forth Inc. is particularly litigious. But there's just enough legal ambiguity in the situation to make me uncomfortable, especially when I must legally deliver clear title to the software I'm producing. - Brad ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/28/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 105 Sat May 25, 1991 F.SERGEANT [Frank] at 17:36 CDT >Given a way to make new definitions (i.e. extend the "development" >environment), then the one of the things you can make is a decompiler Dennis, does this mean that polyFORTH does not come with complete source code? Just the source for the electives? -- Frank ----- 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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) (05/28/91)
Category 2, Topic 9 Message 106 Mon May 27, 1991 D.RUFFER [Dennis] at 03:04 EDT Re: B.RODRIGUEZ2 [Brad] > But the problem is, can Forth Inc. claim that "my" CREATE and > colon are in fact derived from theirs? Those are not the words they are worried about Brad. In fact, if you create your own for your users can use you might be able to technically "get around" the Forth Inc. restrictions. Yes, I think it would be safe to say that almost all of us have been influenced by Chuck's original versions. It would be very hard for a Forth interpreter or compiler to be claimed to be proprietary. > especially when I must legally deliver clear title to the > software I'm producing. Agreed, and I took the trouble to ask Elizabeth about _exactly_ what was comsidered to be proprietary in polyFORTH. The answer was basically the multitasker, vocabularies and the dbms. However, that was quite a few years ago, and I have no idea what her answer would be today. Anyone who wants to "sell" the internals, really needs to talk to her personally. In almost all cases, I'm sure some kind of deal can be worked out to let each have what they need. Re: F.SERGEANT [Frank] > Dennis, does this mean that polyFORTH does not come with complete > source code? Just the source for the electives? No Frank, Brad's question has been about what he can give the end user access to. PolyFORTH comes with _complete_ source code to the "target" system (i.e. an RTX system does not contain the 8086 host system's nucleus, but the 8086 system does). This discussion has been about how much of that system our customers can give to their customers. {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 _or_ uunet!willett!dwp
colin@array.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (05/31/91)
In article <2818.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us> ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes: > This is particularly nasty because I would have Forth Inc.'s source code for > CREATE and colon, just not the rights to use them (without royalty, that is). > A strong case could probably be made, since I have this source code and can't > help but see it and use it, that I have been "influenced" by it .... i.e., > that I couldn't help borrowing bits of it for my own CREATE and colon. It's > arguments like this that bring money into Lotus and Apple. Well, the one useful case (in the U.S.) I know of is the famous NEC-Intel lawsuit. The author of NEC's microcode had amde a detailed study of the Intel microcode, but the Judge ruled that it was "background knowledge" and the slight similarity in microcode sequences was not copyright infringement (if Intel had a copyright, which he ruled it didn't, for failure to enforce). The general principle here is that being familiar with copyrighted code does not irrevocably taint you. Share and enjoy. -- -Colin