From: dxforth@gmail.com
On 14/02/2026 10:50 am, Gerry Jackson wrote:
> On 13/02/2026 12:43, Hans Bezemer wrote:
>> On 13-02-2026 09:27, Anton Ertl wrote:
>>> Hans Bezemer writes:
>>>> On 12-02-2026 08:35, Anton Ertl wrote:
>>>>> [...] small implementations
>>>>> pick and choose from the standard requirements anyway, even among the
>>>>> requirements for CORE words. The CORE wordset has only been a
>>>>> goalpost for peoplle who implement Forth as an exercise.
>>> ...
>>>> I don't think that people who are "implementing Forth as an exercise"
>>>> can be bothered to make it "a standard compiler".
>>>
>>> The point is not standard conformance, but a goalpost: To have
>>> something to direct the work, and also to have something that tells
>>> the implementor when the project is complete.
>>>
>>>> And although wordsets build modularity (which I welcome) it becomes
>>>> useless when it requires you to patch wordsets already implemented.
>>>
>>> Who is "you" in this sentence? Given that you write "implemented",
>>> you seem to argue that the standard requires the system implementor to
>>> implement the base word, and then to patch it. This is not the case.
>>> The system implementor who has decided to implement the FILE words in
>>> addition to the CORE words can implement the FILE version of S" from
>>> the start, without any patching.
>>>
>>> Note also that the FILE version of S" conforms to the requirements for
>>> the CORE version of S", and that's generally the case for the extended
>>> versions of words. E.g., the specification of CORE's POSTPONE
>>> includes
>>>
>>> | An ambiguous condition exists if name is not found.
>>>
>>> so it does not specify what "POSTPONE 123" means. The proposed
>>> recognizer version of POSTPONE specifies that.
>>>
>>> - anton
>>
>> I could have used "one" - wouldn't have changed the meaning. Nice
"Whataboutism"! The argument was (and is) what use has a standard for a toy
compiler?
>
> There's another point I think you're missing. I just looked on at my Forth
test suite on GitHub and 78 people have found it useful enough to give it a
star. I've no idea whether they are all developing their own "toy" system but
I would guess most are,
and their system has to have some testing. I suggest that the easiest way is
to use an existing test suite. As far as I know there is only one, so that
automatically leads them to make their system (at least partially) standard
compliant. An unexpected (
and unintended) consequence of having a test suite.
Cart before horse but I agree. First-time creators will generally pick some
standard or system because it's the easiest way. All the thinking has been
done for one and there's a wealth of existing source from which to choose or
use as a guide. It's a rare lion that hasn't undertaken internship as a camel.
Moore appears to have been a rebel, lone wolf, from the beginning for whom
conformity was anathema, stagnation.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
