ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) (07/22/90)
Someone asked about where to get copies of the Standards documents.
Forth Interest Group
P.O. Box 8231
San Jose, CA 95155
Copies of the Forth-79 and Forth-83 Standards are available at $15
each. It is also interesting to compare these standards with a
description by a model. Assembly language listings for the fig-Forth
model for 12 CPUs are still available -- but more interesting is the
fig-Forth Installation Manual. Also of interest is a Systems Guide to
fig-Forth which discusses the internal structure of the model.
NB fig-Forth is primarily written in Forth -- most of the assembly
language just installs colon definitions in the dictionary. The
Installation Manual gives the Forth code definitions.
306 ANS BASIS document $15
305 Forth-83 Standard $15
300 Forth-79 Standard $15
310 Systems Guide to fig-Forth $25
502 fig-Forth Installation Manual $15
513-528 Source code listings $15
most were written between 1979-1982
[1802,6502,6800,6809,8080,8086/88,9900,Z80
APPLE II, IBM-PC, PDP-11, VAX]
Prices are within US. Members receive 10% discount. Calif residents
must add sales tax. Shipping and handling charge $2.
fig-Forth is worth looking at. The intent was that vendors (rather
than individual users) would use the model as contained in the
listings as the basis for their implemention of Forth. This is what
actually happened. For a period of several years, versions of Forth
which ran in essentially the same way were available for a large
variety of computers. Unless you have had experience with fig-Forth you
won't be able to understand why some people feel that Forth has gone
down hill since.
John J Wavrik
jjwavrik@ucsd.edu Dept of Math C-012
Univ of Calif - San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093 dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) (07/23/90)
In <11971@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>, ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) writes: > > fig-Forth is worth looking at. The intent was that vendors (rather > than individual users) would use the model as contained in the > listings as the basis for their implemention of Forth. This is what > actually happened. For a period of several years, versions of Forth > which ran in essentially the same way were available for a large > variety of computers. Unless you have had experience with fig-Forth you > won't be able to understand why some people feel that Forth has gone > down hill since. I take it from your comments that experience with just one Fig-Forth based system is not what you are referring to here? I get the impression that there is something about a group of highly-related Forth systems that is the real point? Setting aside whether or not a diversification from Fig-Forth was good or bad, and the reasons for it, are you implying that there was something other than mere conformance to a defacto-standard that made Fig-Forth important/special/??? ? Are you lamenting the diversity of lack of portability that followed from Forth-79 and Forth-83 and XYZ Inc.'s Forth, or is there something else that was lost? -Doug P.S. Although this is in the form of messages to/from John and I, anyone with similiar views should feel welcome to reply. --- Preferred: willett!dwp@hobbes.cert.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp Daily: ...!{uunet,nfsun}!willett!dwp [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]