FORTH IS ITS OWN INTERPRETER.
IMPLEMENTING AN INTERPRETER IN FORTH IS AN ABOMINATION.
FORTH IS ITS OWN INTERPRETER.I wonder if on that rule one could implement Forth-specific (even simple) filesystem, using existing dictionary facility (I mean „its logic”). You know:
IMPLEMENTING AN INTERPRETER IN FORTH IS AN ABOMINATION.
creating a file as analogy to word creation, create (sub)directory = create vocabulary etc.
Zbig schrieb am Dienstag, 31. Mai 2022 um 19:41:50 UTC+2:
FORTH IS ITS OWN INTERPRETER.I wonder if on that rule one could implement Forth-specific (even simple)
IMPLEMENTING AN INTERPRETER IN FORTH IS AN ABOMINATION.
filesystem, using existing dictionary facility (I mean „its logic”). You know:
creating a file as analogy to word creation, create (sub)directory = create >> vocabulary etc.
Just take it as tongue-in-cheek comment. After all Forth is a wonderful tool to build your own DSL interpreter.
On 1/06/2022 04:47, minf...@arcor.de wrote:
Zbig schrieb am Dienstag, 31. Mai 2022 um 19:41:50 UTC+2:
FORTH IS ITS OWN INTERPRETER.I wonder if on that rule one could implement Forth-specific (even simple) >> filesystem, using existing dictionary facility (I mean „its logic”). You know:
IMPLEMENTING AN INTERPRETER IN FORTH IS AN ABOMINATION.
creating a file as analogy to word creation, create (sub)directory = create
vocabulary etc.
Just take it as tongue-in-cheek comment. After all Forth is a wonderful toolEven better if one can avoid it. Moore once wrote a BASIC compiler in Forth. Was everyone impressed? Yes - but a lot of effort for something neither he nor they actually needed.
to build your own DSL interpreter.
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 4:24:56 AM UTC+2, dxforth wrote:
On 1/06/2022 04:47, minf...@arcor.de wrote:
Zbig schrieb am Dienstag, 31. Mai 2022 um 19:41:50 UTC+2:Even better if one can avoid it. Moore once wrote a BASIC compiler in Forth. >> Was everyone impressed? Yes - but a lot of effort for something neither he >> nor they actually needed.
FORTH IS ITS OWN INTERPRETER.I wonder if on that rule one could implement Forth-specific (even simple) >> >> filesystem, using existing dictionary facility (I mean „its logic”). You know:
IMPLEMENTING AN INTERPRETER IN FORTH IS AN ABOMINATION.
creating a file as analogy to word creation, create (sub)directory = create
vocabulary etc.
Just take it as tongue-in-cheek comment. After all Forth is a wonderful tool
to build your own DSL interpreter.
The most sophisticated tools I know (MATLAB, Octave, Scilab, NGSPICE, Mathematica, ...) have some kind of interpreter on board. It makes using
them extremely easy and convenient.
On 2/06/2022 15:17, Marcel Hendrix wrote:[..]
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 4:24:56 AM UTC+2, dxforth wrote:
The most sophisticated tools I know (MATLAB, Octave, Scilab, NGSPICE, Mathematica, ...) have some kind of interpreter on board. It makes using them extremely easy and convenient.By sophisticated you mean complicated? You do all the hard work so that others can have it easy. Either one is getting handsomely paid for it -
or it's a labour of love :)
Zbig schrieb am Dienstag, 31. Mai 2022 um 19:41:50 UTC+2:logic”). You know:
FORTH IS ITS OWN INTERPRETER.I wonder if on that rule one could implement Forth-specific (even simple) >>> filesystem, using existing dictionary facility (I mean „its
IMPLEMENTING AN INTERPRETER IN FORTH IS AN ABOMINATION.
creating a file as analogy to word creation, create (sub)directory = create >>> vocabulary etc.
Just take it as tongue-in-cheek comment. After all Forth is a wonderful tool >> to build your own DSL interpreter.
Even better if one can avoid it. Moore once wrote a BASIC compiler in Forth. >Was everyone impressed? Yes - but a lot of effort for something neither he >nor they actually needed.
In article <t7971l$1csa$1@gioia.aioe.org>, dxforth <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/06/2022 04:47, minf...@arcor.de wrote:
Zbig schrieb am Dienstag, 31. Mai 2022 um 19:41:50 UTC+2:logic”). You know:
FORTH IS ITS OWN INTERPRETER.I wonder if on that rule one could implement Forth-specific (even simple) >>>> filesystem, using existing dictionary facility (I mean „its
IMPLEMENTING AN INTERPRETER IN FORTH IS AN ABOMINATION.
creating a file as analogy to word creation, create (sub)directory = create
vocabulary etc.
Just take it as tongue-in-cheek comment. After all Forth is a wonderful tool
to build your own DSL interpreter.
Even better if one can avoid it. Moore once wrote a BASIC compiler in Forth. >>Was everyone impressed? Yes - but a lot of effort for something neither he >>nor they actually needed.
I guessed that the BASIC compiler originated from Moore himself,
but I found no confirmation of that. What is you source of information?
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 8:37:42 AM UTC+2, dxforth wrote:
On 2/06/2022 15:17, Marcel Hendrix wrote:[..]
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 4:24:56 AM UTC+2, dxforth wrote:
The most sophisticated tools I know (MATLAB, Octave, Scilab, NGSPICE,By sophisticated you mean complicated? You do all the hard work so that
Mathematica, ...) have some kind of interpreter on board. It makes using >> > them extremely easy and convenient.
others can have it easy. Either one is getting handsomely paid for it -
or it's a labour of love :)
A side-benefit of having an interpreter is that they have to open up their API,
and keep it that way. Most of the algorithms are based on open source
anyway, but it saves me a lot of time just looking at it or copying bits and pieces.
But why go down the hard path of emulating the MATLABs and
SPICE in Forth if those tools already exist? Are they flawed?
On 2/06/2022 18:54, Marcel Hendrix wrote:
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 8:37:42 AM UTC+2, dxforth wrote:
On 2/06/2022 15:17, Marcel Hendrix wrote:[..]
On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 4:24:56 AM UTC+2, dxforth wrote:
The most sophisticated tools I know (MATLAB, Octave, Scilab, NGSPICE,By sophisticated you mean complicated? You do all the hard work so that
Mathematica, ...) have some kind of interpreter on board. It makes using >> > them extremely easy and convenient.
others can have it easy. Either one is getting handsomely paid for it -
or it's a labour of love :)
A side-benefit of having an interpreter is that they have to open up their API,I'm all for other folk writing and maintaining programs for the masses
and keep it that way. Most of the algorithms are based on open source anyway, but it saves me a lot of time just looking at it or copying bits and
pieces.
as it leaves me free to write the small things I need, as I please.
But why go down the hard path of emulating the MATLABs and SPICE in
Forth if those tools already exist? Are they flawed? When I began
my forth compiler, the systems I could afford were rather miserable
so I felt some justification. OTOH I severely miscalculated both
the time it would take and my ability.
On 2/06/2022 15:17, Marcel Hendrix wrote:
The most sophisticated tools I know (MATLAB, Octave, Scilab, NGSPICE,
Mathematica, ...) have some kind of interpreter on board.
You do all the hard work so that
others can have it easy.
And if the interpreter is not designed in from the start, it still
appears in an ad-hoc form, according to Greenspun's tenth rule.
On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 12:44:33 PM UTC+2, Anton Ertl wrote:
[..]
"Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified,
bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 46:04:55 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,349 |
| Posted today: | 1 |