27 Jun
2002
27 Jun
'02
4:30 a.m.
From: "Hans B Pufal"
<hansp(a)aconit.org>
Zane H. Healy wrote:
The comment on the SOL page says it is a "non-standard" FORTH so perhaps
reading the docs might be advisable.
-- hbp
Hi
It sounds like they replaced all of the '.' words. When
people start out in Forth, they find it hard to get used
to all of the shorthand words. Things like . @ ! , don't
have any meaning until one uses them for a while. Since
defining them is so easy, I've always thought the one could
just alias them. Once one got used to the other quirks
of the language, one could take advantage of the shorthand
words.
I still use Forth for most any of the quick stuff I want
to do at home. It is probably the fast way to go from idea
to working program that I've encountered. I've written
assemblers, disassemblers, special editors, special file
transfer and any mumber of utilies with it. It isn't as
strong as perl for string handling but if you know what
you want to do, the language itself doesn't get in the
way. It is said that in Forth, "You don't write a program
for your application in Forth, you modify Forth to be
your application".
Dwight
2 3 + .
That's a total of 8 keys to press --
<two><space><three><space><plus><space><period><return>
You should get
5 OK
on the terminal (or something like that, with a 5 in it).
Unfortunatly it results in:
2 3 + . .? 
27 Jun
27 Jun
7:14 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 2744 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20020627/e8d396e8/at…
9:52 a.m.
It was thus said that the Great Tony Duell once stated:
The only language I like more than Forth for _some_ quick hacks is RPL
(Reverse Polish Lisp). It's Forth done to excess in that you can push
_anything_ onto the stack, not just integers (as in integers, reals,
complexes, vectors, matrices, strings, lists (of anything), even
_programs_!). Internally, of course, the stack is a stack of pointers to
objects in memory.
At college I wrote my own Forth-like system (called VIth as Fifth was
already taken 8-) that was pretty much like this. I even used it in one of
my classes to implement a Unix shell where Unix commands could be pushed
onto the stack (let's see, it took about two days to get it extended to be a
fully programmable Unix shell, which was a *team* project for the class).
The more I study both Forth and Lisp, the more I realize that both are
quite similar (only that Lisp is a backwards Forth). I like the concepts of
both but I'm still not satisfied with them (hard to state exactly why
though).
-spc (That as in my Forth phase ... now I'm in a Lisp phase ... 8-)
10:14 a.m.
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:
It was thus said that the Great Tony Duell once
stated:
>
> The only language I like more than Forth for _some_ quick hacks is RPL
> (Reverse Polish Lisp). It's Forth done to excess in that you can push
> _anything_ onto the stack, not just integers (as in integers, reals,
> complexes, vectors, matrices, strings, lists (of anything), even
> _programs_!). Internally, of course, the stack is a stack of pointers to
> objects in memory.
Postscript is a little like that (a Forth like language that allows pushing a
wide variety of objects on the stack)
Always thought STOIC was more consistant that Forth in its string handling
(strings could be pushed on the stack like PostScript...)
At college I wrote my own Forth-like system (called VIth as Fifth was
already taken 8-) that was pretty much like this. I even used it in one of
my classes to implement a Unix shell where Unix commands could be pushed
onto the stack (let's see, it took about two days to get it extended to be a
fully programmable Unix shell, which was a *team* project for the class).
The more I study both Forth and Lisp, the more I realize that both are
quite similar (only that Lisp is a backwards Forth). I like the concepts of
both but I'm still not satisfied with them (hard to state exactly why
though).
-spc (That as in my Forth phase ... now I'm in a Lisp phase ... 8-)
Peter Wallace
8:18 a.m.
Mitch Wright wrote:
Are there other forths( fig or F83) for the PDP-11?
Where?
These two I found with Google:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rt/sigt…
http://world.std.com/~jcomeau/ftparea/hacking/mystuff/pdp11/forth.bld
-- hbp
4:19 p.m.
I've sorta been looking for Fifth. If anyone still has a copy,
I would appreciate it. Should be a relatively small file
compared to things nowadays...
I used to work with the guy that wrote it, Cliff Click, and
from his descriptions, I always wanted to play with it
a bit.
Kelly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner" <spc(a)conman.org>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: Forth for PDP-11
At college I wrote my own Forth-like system (called VIth as Fifth was
already taken 8-) that was pretty much like this. I even used it in one
of
my classes to implement a Unix shell where Unix
commands could be pushed
onto the stack (let's see, it took about two days to get it extended to be
a
fully programmable Unix shell, which was a *team*
project for the class).
7985
days inactive
7986
days old
6 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
dwightk.elvey＠amd.com -
hansp＠aconit.org -
kfergaso＠swbell.net -
mew_list＠swbell.net -
pcw＠mesanet.com -
spc＠conman.org