DIBOL and RPG for RSTS

[Paul Koning]

> On Mar 28, 2020, at 2:55 PM, dwight via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> 
> There are a few reasons most don't like Forth:
> 
>  1.   no type checking ( suppose to save dumb programmers )
>  2.   Often, no floating point. ( Math has to be well thought out but when done right in integer math it has few bugs ).
>  3.  Few libraries ( One can often make code to attach to things like C libraries but it is a pain in the A. Often if you know what needs to be done it is easier and better to write your own low level code. Things like USB are tough to get at the low level stuff, though )
>  4.  To many cryptic symbols ( : , . ! @ ; )
>  5.  To much stack noise ( dup swap rot over )
> 
> I still use Forth for all my hobby work. It is the easiest language to get something working of any of the languages I've worked with.
> ...
> Learning to be effective with Forth has a relatively steep learning curve. You have to understand the compiler and how it deals with your source code. You need to get used to proper comments to handle stack usage. You need to learn how to write short easily test words ( routines ). It is clearly not just a backwards LISP. It is not Python either.
> Dwight

No, it certainly isn't Python, which is my other major fast-coding language.

FORTH started as a small fast real-time control language; its inventor worked in an observatory and needed a way to control telescopes.  It's still used for that today.  I recently went looking for FORTH processors in FPGA, there are several.  One that looked very good was designed for robotics and machine vision work.  The designer posted both the FPGA design and the software, which includes a TCP/IP (or UDP/IP ?) stack.  He reports that the code is both much smaller and faster than compiled C code running on conventional FPGA embedded processors.

	paul