I came upon
https://github.com/uho/docker-forth
with a plethora of Forths.
[If you are interested in ciforth, you could have the latest
release from github..ciforth ]
docker tells you not what it is supposed to do, it list a litany
of advantages. You can cash in ... only if you are willing to install
the docker gui and experiment with it.
I think of an application xfig. You pass an image and xfig turns it
in a jigsaw puzzle. I can imagine that it is an advatage that it works
the same on apple or ms. I'm quite sure that you have totally different version too.
What can be the advantage of having that for Forths systems?
The only remarkable about ciforth was that the versions are
years behind.
We should be fundamentally grateful to Ulrich Hoffman
for compiling this collection and publishing it on github.
Even if I personally don't use Docker, I am happy about
Ulrich's commitment.
Sketch me a use case.
I respect Ullrich, so that make me ask the question what is the
use of it.
Sketch me a use case.
A very convenient collection for somebody wanting to check
compatibility of, or benchmark, Forth code.
I came upon
https://github.com/uho/docker-forth
with a plethora of Forths.
[If you are interested in ciforth, you could have the latest
release from github..ciforth ]
docker tells you not what it is supposed to do, it list a litany
of advantages. You can cash in ... only if you are willing to install
the docker gui and experiment with it.
I think of an application xfig. You pass an image and xfig turns it
in a jigsaw puzzle. I can imagine that it is an advatage that it works
the same on apple or ms. I'm quite sure that you have totally different >version too.
What can be the advantage of having that for Forths systems?
The only remarkable about ciforth was that the versions are
years behind.
Groetjes Albert--
--
Temu exploits Christians: (Disclaimer, only 10 apostles)
Last Supper Acrylic Suncatcher - 15Cm Round Stained Glass- Style Wall
Art For Home, Office And Garden Decor - Perfect For Windows, Bars,
And Gifts For Friends Family And Colleagues.
I see its use rather limited - and a whole thing
rather as a kind of novelty - because IMHO compatibility
of Forth code isn't as important as its efficiency.
If the code can be made more efficient by any
non-standard approach, then 'goodbye compatibility',
and the user of some other Forth system if free
to modify the code on his own.
albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl writes:
Sketch me a use case.
1) You want to check whether a program runs on a number of Forths.
- anton
I see its use rather limited - and a whole thing
rather as a kind of novelty - because IMHO compatibility
of Forth code isn't as important as its efficiency.
If the code can be made more efficient by any
non-standard approach, then 'goodbye compatibility',
and the user of some other Forth system if free
to modify the code on his own.
Actually, your view is quite non-standard. I don't know
any Forth users that complain that their system is
inefficient, even if it is token-threaded Fig-Forth on
a ZX80 with cassette-tape. (But then I also do not know
many (>3) Forth users that demand compatibility.)
When I was just starting to use Forth, I found
many magazine articles that discussed squeezing out
the odd cycle by modifying the inner interpreter, and
remember being mighty impressed by that.
However, after some spying around in the sources for
a while I started to wonder if they couldn't see the
forest for the trees.
My current opinion is that these authors are/were
neither interested in efficiency nor in compatibility.
[..]When I was just starting to use Forth, I found
many magazine articles that discussed squeezing out
the odd cycle by modifying the inner interpreter, and
remember being mighty impressed by that.
However, after some spying around in the sources for
a while I started to wonder if they couldn't see the
forest for the trees.
Could you, please, give any example of such
article (if it's available on any WWW page)?
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 20:48:37 +0000, LIT wrote:
I see its use rather limited - and a whole thing
rather as a kind of novelty - because IMHO compatibility
of Forth code isn't as important as its efficiency.
If the code can be made more efficient by any
non-standard approach, then 'goodbye compatibility',
and the user of some other Forth system if free
to modify the code on his own.
Actually, your view is quite non-standard. I don't know
any Forth users that complain that their system is
inefficient, even if it is token-threaded Fig-Forth on
a ZX80 with cassette-tape. (But then I also do not know
many (>3) Forth users that demand compatibility.)
When I was just starting to use Forth, I found
many magazine articles that discussed squeezing out
the odd cycle by modifying the inner interpreter, and
remember being mighty impressed by that.
However, after some spying around in the sources for
a while I started to wonder if they couldn't see the
forest for the trees.
My current opinion is that these authors are/were
neither interested in efficiency nor in compatibility.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 19:28:03 +0000, LIT wrote:
[..]
[..]When I was just starting to use Forth, I found
many magazine articles that discussed squeezing out
the odd cycle by modifying the inner interpreter, and
remember being mighty impressed by that.
However, after some spying around in the sources for
a while I started to wonder if they couldn't see the
forest for the trees.
Could you, please, give any example of such
article (if it's available on any WWW page)?
Start here, Brian Woodroffe's 6809 'Forth computer' series: https://archive.org/details/Forth-Computer-Wireless-World-1983/mode/2up
[..] I've never regretted my choice of DTC for
a 16-bit forth. So it was with some surprise to discover you considered
my choice of timestamp parser 'a joke'. I was left to wonder by what criteria.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 2:36:56 +0000, dxf wrote:
[..] I've never regretted my choice of DTC for
a 16-bit forth. So it was with some surprise to discover you considered
my choice of timestamp parser 'a joke'. I was left to wonder by what
criteria.
Because of using 5 roll.
I came upon
https://github.com/uho/docker-forth
with a plethora of Forths.
[If you are interested in ciforth, you could have the latest
release from github..ciforth ]
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:19:51 +0000, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
I came upon
https://github.com/uho/docker-forth
with a plethora of Forths.
[If you are interested in ciforth, you could have the latest
release from github..ciforth ]
I wanted to give a try to forth32.com (binary
from ms2d148.zip archive) but it doesn't work.
Tried it under FreeDOS, MS-DOS 6.22 and DOSEMU
with FreeDOS, on two different machines.
It just shows the blinking screen and hangs
the whole system.
Maybe it does require some special configuration, anything?How would you expect a 32 bit Forth to work under MSDOS?
I realised that you run one of my programs, fetched from
https://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst/figforth.html
You post to the world and you expect every Chinese to
understand what you are talking about?
It is better that you provide context, and also sign your
messages, if need be with a pseudonum.
Maybe it does require some special configuration, anything?How would you expect a 32 bit Forth to work under MSDOS?
Of course it needs a special configuration.
This is explained in README.TXT. How could you have guessed?
I realised that you run one of my programs, fetched from
https://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst/figforth.html
You post to the world and you expect every Chinese to
understand what you are talking about?
No, I post to the thread and I expect its creator _maybe_
will understand that. But maybe not, from what I see.
It is better that you provide context, and also sign your
messages, if need be with a pseudonum.
Do you really believe, that if someone in the
Internet uses the name 'John Doe' - or, say,
'Paul Johnson' - then really his name is John Doe
(or Paul Johnson)? Because it looks more 'human-like'?
I never make any assumptions like that.
README.TXT:Maybe it does require some special configuration, anything?How would you expect a 32 bit Forth to work under MSDOS?
Of course it needs a special configuration.
This is explained in README.TXT. How could you have guessed?
Well in README.TXT there is just 'pointer'
to quite basic config.sys recommended, like this:
device=himem.sys
DOS=HIGH
Of course my config-s use that all the time
(among other settings). Do you mean some other
settings may interfere? The abobe seems not
to be enough - that's why I posted my question.
Anyway I tried it again using such spartan
config.sys - and with no autoexec.bat at all
- and it's still not going to work.
DOS 6.22, 386SX 25 Mhz
This is how your post should look like:
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,064 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 153:20:38 |
| Calls: | 13,691 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,936 |
| D/L today: |
2,526 files (731M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,411,055 |