Re: State of Forth 200x
- From: "werty" <werty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Jun 2006 09:47:44 -0700
Complaints and few solutions !!!
I have explained the streamlined Forth , but not on your hardware .
It's up to you , here to argue it with "Us" to figure how to
code it !! Stop your complaining and start coding , if you can't
figure
how to code a I.P. , or nixing [compiler] words ,
i'll explain . But it is simple elimation ! I justfigured they were
NOT
needed at all !
But you must do some coding on your hardware . You must
start a new Forth ! From ground zero .
First rule : dont waste time on a Full , complete , correct assembler
..
Only code the classic , essential op codes ,later we elegantize ...
So what are you afraid of machine langauge ?
My method skips the hard to figure "SuperOpCodes" !!
Tempting isn't it ? BUT DON"t DO IT ! For it will be faster
to work with the super codes at a higher level !
remember ! The first draft doesnt need RunTime speed .
You will only need to do assembly for a short bit of code ( Forth
built in , instant assembler ) , after that , you NEVER have to
do Low level at a low level ! Cool huh ! Use High level to
do Machine language ...
I'm doin the ARM instruction set . I think the PDA is far easier to
work with and is NOT slow .
It won't need a KeyBoard !!!! it will create the remaining 90%
of Forth
using Voice menu recognition and touch screem ... cooool huh ?
PLease no complaints about "Where's the beef " ...
It's up to YOU !!!!!! You gotta code it . I obsolete and expose
the
stupid stuff and explain a common sense , simple way to do it ,
but i won't hold your hand .....
You gotta do the work ....
If your too lazy to learn machine lang , then you don't deserve a
Forth ,
go use the free stuff ha ha ....
_____________________________________________________________________--
Andreas Kochenburger wrote:
I scanned through the available info at
http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
and am a bit disappointed about the really minuscule progress made
there towards a more modern Forth. Of course the right answer to me
would be: where are your own contributions?
But anyhow, no proposal seems to have been made towards obvious
lacking things: OO, libraries, string handling, com sockets - you name
others. Instead there are "teacup discussions" about standardizing
already existing defacto words à la DEFER-IS. I don't call that
progress.
So I am dreaming of the day where some people pull together their
courage and time just to propose an OO scheme (damn that zelotic
discussion of object-method or method-object followers) ... or for
setting environment flags (my favourite: float_dpl when 0 a dot in a
number is interpreted as a double, when 1 the dot is interpreted as an
fp number and put on the fp stack) ... or
Andreas
-------
Dead men have no pockets.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Question from a newcomer - regarding words
- Next by Date: Re: New FORTH project commited to freshmeat.net
- Previous by thread: Re: State of Forth 200x
- Next by thread: Re: State of Forth 200x
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|