Nice to hear some new echoes from 'ole figForth'. IIRC my first exposure
to Forth was a fig-forth listing for the 6502 CPU.
Half the listing was printed on red paper to prevent copying.
Last contact I had was flipping through Ting's Guide booklet: https://www.forth.org/OffeteStore/1010_SystemsGuideToFigForth.pdf
Opening it again, I enjoyed reading the preface to the 2nd edition:
Fig-Forth refuses to Die. :-)
Last contact I had was flipping through Ting's Guide booklet: https://www.forth.org/OffeteStore/1010_SystemsGuideToFigForth.pdf
minforth@gmx.net (minforth) writes:
Last contact I had was flipping through Ting's Guide booklet:
https://www.forth.org/OffeteStore/1010_SystemsGuideToFigForth.pdf
This looks good and I'll try to read through it. Inside F83 is also excellent. I looked at a listing of FigForth a while back and found it incomprehensible, but maybe the pdf above will help. It would be
interesting to run it under simulation and track the stack activity.
minforth@gmx.net (minforth) writes:
Last contact I had was flipping through Ting's Guide booklet:
https://www.forth.org/OffeteStore/1010_SystemsGuideToFigForth.pdf
This looks good and I'll try to read through it. Inside F83 is also excellent. I looked at a listing of FigForth a while back and found it incomprehensible, but maybe the pdf above will help. It would be
interesting to run it under simulation and track the stack activity.
On 4/04/2024 9:30 am, minforth wrote:
Nice to hear some new echoes from 'ole figForth'. IIRC my first exposure
to Forth was a fig-forth listing for the 6502 CPU.
Half the listing was printed on red paper to prevent copying.
It wasn't Fig's intent that it should be copied?
Nice to hear some new echoes from 'ole figForth'. IIRC my first exposure
to Forth was a fig-forth listing for the 6502 CPU.
Half the listing was printed on red paper to prevent copying.
Last contact I had was flipping through Ting's Guide booklet: >https://www.forth.org/OffeteStore/1010_SystemsGuideToFigForth.pdf--
Opening it again, I enjoyed reading the preface to the 2nd edition:
Fig-Forth refuses to Die. :-)
minforth@gmx.net (minforth) writes:
Last contact I had was flipping through Ting's Guide booklet:
https://www.forth.org/OffeteStore/1010_SystemsGuideToFigForth.pdf
This looks good and I'll try to read through it. Inside F83 is also >excellent.
I looked at a listing of FigForth a while back and found it
incomprehensible, but maybe the pdf above will help.
minforth@gmx.net (minforth) writes:
Last contact I had was flipping through Ting's Guide booklet:
https://www.forth.org/OffeteStore/1010_SystemsGuideToFigForth.pdf
This looks good and I'll try to read through it. Inside F83 is also excellent. I looked at a listing of FigForth a while back and found it incomprehensible, but maybe the pdf above will help. It would be
interesting to run it under simulation and track the stack activity.
Another in-depth description of fig-forth is here:
https://archive.org/details/MitchDerickLindaBakerForthEncyclopediaTheCompleteForthProgrammersManualMountainViewPress1982
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> writes:
minforth@gmx.net (minforth) writes:
Last contact I had was flipping through Ting's Guide booklet:
https://www.forth.org/OffeteStore/1010_SystemsGuideToFigForth.pdf
This looks good and I'll try to read through it. Inside F83 is also >>excellent.
One interesting aspect is that Ting organized the two guides quite >differently. Apparently he was not happy with the organization of
System's Guide to fig-Forth.
I looked at a listing of FigForth a while back and found it >>incomprehensible, but maybe the pdf above will help.
It certainly should, particularly because the guide shows Forth source
code rather than the assembler input that the listings contained.
- anton
The assembler listing is one to one to Forth source
What was the last time
a gforth user looked up the source of DROP ? Was it illuminating?
The fig listings were intended to type in (before modems, let
alone internet) not to be studied.
There are two ways to look at the Fig-Forth source. The first is in
the partially predigested assembly source for a particular
processor. As easy to follow as an eForth listing. :-)
Not sure if that was ironic, but I found eforth and the fig assembler listings relatively easy to follow, though it was obvious that the asm
code had been generated by another program and then maybe massaged a
little. It was the Forth source that I found near unreadable.
Considering that it was written in a time before full screen editors
and most likely with an ASR33, give it a break.
David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> writes:
Considering that it was written in a time before full screen editors
and most likely with an ASR33, give it a break.
I don't see how that would be an issue? Spitbol is pretty readable and
it was originally written in IBM 360 assembly language, and probably keypunched. It is heavily commented though. FigForth and cmForth were pretty unreadable to me, I think, partly from lack of code comments, but
also partly because of Forth itself.
FigForth and cmForth were
pretty unreadable to me, I think, partly from lack of code comments, but
also partly because of Forth itself.
On 4/3/24 8:17 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
minforth@gmx.net (minforth) writes:
Last contact I had was flipping through Ting's Guide booklet:
https://www.forth.org/OffeteStore/1010_SystemsGuideToFigForth.pdf
This looks good and I'll try to read through it. Inside F83 is also
excellent. I looked at a listing of FigForth a while back and found it
incomprehensible, but maybe the pdf above will help. It would be
interesting to run it under simulation and track the stack activity.
There are two ways to look at the Fig-Forth source. The first is in the >partially predigested assembly source for a particular processor. As
easy to follow as an eForth listing. :-)
The second is the high level source suitable for a meta-compiler.
Published in one of the fig documents. The Installation Manual I think.
David Schultz
Nowadays I guess it is, in order of importance, C-source,
metacompiler, assembler source, other languages.
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:
Nowadays I guess it is, in order of importance, C-source,
metacompiler, assembler source, other languages.
These days there are plenty of computers and language implementations available, so if you're trying to write a Forth, it seems reasonable to metacompile starting with some existing Forth such as gforth.
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:
Nowadays I guess it is, in order of importance, C-source,
metacompiler, assembler source, other languages.
These days there are plenty of computers and language implementations >available, so if you're trying to write a Forth, it seems reasonable to >metacompile starting with some existing Forth such as gforth.
This is also fun: https://github.com/nineties/planckforthOr this:
Sysop: | DaiTengu |
---|---|
Location: | Appleton, WI |
Users: | 915 |
Nodes: | 10 (2 / 8) |
Uptime: | 47:09:06 |
Calls: | 12,170 |
Files: | 186,522 |
Messages: | 2,234,623 |