From: anthk@disroot.org   
      
   On 2025-05-28, dxf  wrote:   
   > On 27/05/2025 10:33 pm, Alexis wrote:   
   >>   
   >> Thought this community might be interested in this:   
   >>   
   >> "[Philippe] doesn’t take a strong stance on whether this should   
   >> technically qualify as a Forth implementation, given that the base   
   >> implementation lacks stacks, dictionaries, and the ability to define   
   >> words. However, it does have an outer and inner interpreter, the ability   
   >> to compile and execute code, and most importantly, 'the simplicity and   
   >> hacky feeling of Forth.'"   
   >>   
   >> -- https://hackaday.com/2025/05/27/a-forth-os-in-46-bytes/   
   >   
   > Interesting in that Forth still has a name and reputation with which folks   
   > want to be associated.   
   >   
   > Whether the reputation is deserved is another matter.  A reason Moore gives   
   > for leaving Forth Inc was 'Forth started simple, gradually accreting layers   
   > of complexity and that became the culture'.  If there's a gene for simplicity   
   > it hasn't passed down the generations.  We admire the Diogenes of the world.   
   > Endlessly listen to their admonishments.  But God forbid actually living   
   that.   
   >   
      
   This is barely a memory poker and assembler; kinda like the Monitor from the   
   Apple I or   
   the Kim-Uno.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)