From: the.beez.speaks@gmail.com
On 14-02-2026 02:53, dxf wrote:
> 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.
>
Read what you're saying: "SOME standard or system". Not necessarily an
ANS-kind of system. I think a newbie will rather rip something from the
web that works and use that as a template than take a paper standard and
try to replicate that one.
If I dig into my own history - I took the Forth-79 standard, took the
most essential parts from it and started from there - AKA it wasn't even
a FULL Forth-79 system. The move to ANS started several versions later.
So no - I don't swallow the argument "a CORE wordset is useful for bare
implementations". I even wonder if they take a look at all. Or if they
even care. If I may believe the presentations of recent Forth
experiments, not at all.
Hans Bezemer
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
