Re(2): [colorforth] DOES> How is colorForth different from other Forths?

["Arthur W. Green" <goshawk@xxxxxxxxx>]

>I posit, absolutely, that MISC can *never* catch on commercially (sorry 
>Chuck), because the concept is so simple that a teenager with a year's 
>experience hacking TTL circuitry can replicate the CPU, in its entirety, 
>in discrete component TTL logic, based *entirely* from online material 
>accessible today.  E.g., the CPU si so simple, it's virtually public 
>domain.
>
I think Mark Slicker makes a good point about the reduction in costs.

I also think the tides of the industry are heading towards manageability
in both software AND hardware. One of the many symptoms of this change is
that it is now becoming increasingly easy to find industry people who,
each, are having their own "epiphany" about the many benefits of simplicity.

So, I submit, that *especially* because MISC is so simple that it *will*
catch on commercially. The state of industry as most know it is
artificially-enforced and inflated, so it would not be proper to judge
that as the Natural Order Of Things. The big problem with Forth and MISC,
as I believe Jeff Fox has discussed numerous times, is that it advocates
a perspective that is quite contrary to how "we" do "business as usual".

However, I also submit that this mode of business "we" are now employing
is beginning to change (just read in-between the lines of your morning
paper). It is no longer sustainable to do things the old way.


>Likewise with ColorForth, and I believe this is why Chuck released 
>ColorForth to the public domain.  The software is just too simple.  
>There are no parsers in the traditional sense of the word, the 
>optimizations performed are no-brainers and drop-dead simple to 
>implement, etc.
>
To say it is "too simple" is trivializing Chuck's work, making it sound
positively mundane.

You're right, all this can seem so amazingingly simple; now that it is
actually here for us to all scrutinize! But plainly, we get the luxury of
making this observation only after the fact of its existence. And this
observation, taken too far, is insensitive to the groundwork put down
before any of this was actually possible. I do not see anyone with
Chuck's level of experience having both the gall AND wisdom to try
anything like this!

I've always believed it takes a real tiger to know what garbage to cut
away to make anything simple. (Coincidentally, I believe Mr. Moore's sign
from the Chinese Zodiac is the "Tiger", which doesn't surprise me.) And I
think his genius is firmly demonstrated in his ability to make all of
this seem so simple for you to understand. (Frankly, I'm having a tougher
time working it all out.)


>The only thing one needs to do is write a tutorial on using ColorForth,
>on how PAD words, on how to code graphics routines, and maybe a few 
>other tid-bits, tips, and tricks.  I predict a 13-page manual (if that) 
>is all that'd be needed for someone even half-way familiar with Forth in 
>general to become virtually a virtuoso with ColorForth.
>
I agree that the production of a tutorial or some groundwork
documentation is necessary. I guess I'm thinking along the lines of a
very-abbreviated "Thinking Forth"-like tutorial, which explains how to
best maximize the facilities provided by colorForth and the MISC
architecture it "emulates". I think this would make an excellent
supplement to any documentation showing a new user around colorForth, as
I think it eludes most of the folks on this list.

There should also be a FAQ, which covers many of the basic questions a
new user might ask, as well as questions typical from users of older
Forth systems (like oft-posted ones about DOES>, ABORT, etc.). Perhaps
there is already such a thing?

-- Art



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com