From: admin@127.0.0.1
On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 15:05:19 +0100
minforth wrote:
> Am 12.12.2025 um 11:43 schrieb Anthk NM:
> > 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.
>
> Better google for: SectorForth = a minimal Forth system that fits into
> a drive's boot sector.
IIRC a 4k forth is more than do-able (depends on your boot sector size,
I guess). Forth is pretty obscu^w minimal anyhow. After some decades
there's barely any agreement on how to handle text parsing, ISTM.
Unicode? forget it.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
