UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET (01/05/91)
* Replying to myself >>> Standalone applications... There is some confusion here... The most commom >>> application in Forth *IS* Standalone, i.e., you turn on your computer, load >>> Forth, load the application, and use it... >> This is almost EXACT definition of appplication that is NOT >> stand-alone i.e. it can't be executed without some kind of intermediary ;-) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > And what is the intermediary (in this case)? Forth? I agree with your > definition of what is not stand-alone, but I can't see where my definition > match with yours... > Maybe the problem is with the "load". In this case, "load" can mean "load from > ROM to RAM", "load, at BOOT, from drive", "just initialize it"... Is the intermediary that you specified the user? I think the user is always present you some way (turning on the machine?)... You can even be right (and I wrong), but when I want to visualize a stand-alone application, I think in a MUMPS system. >>> (8-DCS) >> Zarko Berberski EBERBERS@YUBGEF51.bitnet > (8-DCS) (8-DCS) Daniel C. Sobral UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET
ritchie@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (David Ritchie) (01/06/91)
/ hpdmd48:comp.lang.forth / UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET writes: >* Replying to myself > >>>> Standalone applications... There is some confusion here... The most commom >>>> application in Forth *IS* Standalone, i.e., you turn on your computer, load >>>> Forth, load the application, and use it... > >>> This is almost EXACT definition of appplication that is NOT >>> stand-alone i.e. it can't be executed without some kind of intermediary ;-) >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sorry about the delay -- had to worry about my day job for a few days :^>. By "stand-alone", I would say that includes both embedded programs and applications that run under an OS. I do *not* consider having the interpreter loading and interpreting source code stand-alone. >> And what is the intermediary (in this case)? Forth? I agree with your >> definition of what is not stand-alone, but I can't see where my definition >> match with yours... > >> Maybe the problem is with the "load". In this case, "load" can mean "load >> from ROM to RAM", "load, at BOOT, from drive", "just initialize it"... This still sidesteps the issue of 'where do I start?'. >Is the intermediary that you specified the user? I think the user is always >present you some way (turning on the machine?)... You can even be right (and I >wrong), but when I want to visualize a stand-alone application, I think in a >MUMPS system. Try thinking of applications where there is no OS or that are in 24 hour a day operation. Your willingness to type 'load 1' will evaporate almost immediately after the 3 or 4th 3 am phone call :^> . The earlier posting concerning my post "What's wrong with Forth..." was not dealing with my personal perceptions of Forth, but my view of what non-Forthers will think when initially exposed to Forth if they come from a non-Forth background. Screens and vocabularies and stacks and state sensitivity and no type checking and no standards and "every Forth is a little different" .... -- All these things are outside the normal world view of programming languages taught to the typical programmer today. >>>> (8-DCS) >>> Zarko Berberski EBERBERS@YUBGEF51.bitnet > (8-DCS) >Daniel C. Sobral >UNBCIC@BRFAPESP.BITNET -- Dave Ritchie ritchie@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com