In article ,   
   Hans Bezemer   wrote:   
   >On 14-02-2026 02:53, dxf wrote:   
   >> 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.   
      
   Maybe, maybe not. If you don't know anything about Forth and want to   
   learn e.g. Haskell, and consider Forth as an exercise it is possible   
   that you start with the CORE description.   
      
   >   
   >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.   
      
   I was used to fig-Forth, and scanned the fig-Forth documentation and   
   ocr-ed it. Contributed to Z80, using blocks-in-files for CPM, later MSDOS.   
   These were used for real programs. Around 1990 for a campaign of the   
   socialist party (SP), millions of addresses where printed for personal   
   letters, based on street databases. Pallets of chain printing stickers.   
      
   >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.   
      
   So once the ISO93 came along, I adapted an MSDOS Forth, then evolved   
   it to 32 bits, then ported to Windows and linux, then evolved it to 64 bits.   
   Practical additions are the file wordset, and standard in/standard out,   
   the latter not guided by a standard.   
   All the way I was concerned with compatibility and programs keep running.   
   In practice that meant all the stuff from fig-Forth needed for   
   programming in practice, was kept.   
   It was accidental that the CORE set was a part of this.   
      
   The DEC Alpha came along. This means changing the assembler source, to   
   wit only the pieces written in assembly, not the headers, not the   
   documentation, not the test. That was done within 14 days wall clock   
   time (not 8 working hours!).   
      
   All programs that work in this model, kept working on the DEC Alpha.   
      
   Willem Ouwerkerk c.s. developed many Forths for small SBC (8051, etc.)   
   This was done with a so called metacompiler. Once you get used to   
   this tool, it is comparitively easy to port to new microprocessors.   
   In this development path, the first thing you do is to write a   
   Forth assembler for the new processor, then insert the uP-dependant   
   stuff into the metacompiler tool.   
   In this way the meta sources determine what is present, possibly   
   a bit idiosyncratic.   
      
   I consider my assembler sources more valuable than an open source   
   metacompiler system, so I choose that route.   
      
      
   >   
   >Hans Bezemer   
   >   
      
   Groetjes Albert   
   --   
   The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.   
   The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy   
   over 80 years, like Western Europe.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)