home .. forth .. colorforth mail list archive ..

Re: [colorforth] New Linux 4word

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:18:56PM -0400, Mark Slicker wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>
> >Is there is a binary dump from the latest officialy colorforth?
> >I would love to regenerate an assembler file, like I did for
> >retroforth. We could proceed from there.
>
> Anyone who is the least bit informed would know colorForth binaries (and
> source!) have been availble virtually from the moment of its release, not
> to mention several assembler ports. That seems a bizare starting point
> given what has already been acomplished.

You don't read my post. The bewilderment of different versions of
colorforth is what makes me ask for a "latest official colorforth,
even if its a binary.".
Nobody seems to document what version of Chuck they are based on,
or what they have accomplished. People seem to work on newer
version sent to them by Chuck and seem not to publish those
original versions or diffs, only their own hacks.

Actually, I think that very little is accomplished. There is still no
colorforth that boots from virtually any PC. That is the most
important accomplishment that counts in my book. Another mile stone
would be an official glossary, where everybody documents her
deviations from the glossary. Another mile stone would be a test
suite. Of course some interesting programs have been written with
various colorforth's. That is not the subject here.

What seems a bizarre starting point isn't. There is a smooth sailing
path from a Forth defined in Forth assembler to a Forth in Forth.
You may not realize that the scripting of ciasdis extracts names
from binaries.

Then I'm skeptical of the whole Metaforth stuff. I have seen so
many terribly complicated idiosyncratic versions of them.
I want to start from assembler, then add maybe macro's for headers.
If that can be improved, fine. Probably it can't.

I *do* have an Intel Pentium Forth assembler, that can be ported
to colorforth. Other Forth assemblers rely heavily on CREATE/DOES>,
this one doesn't.
I need some convincing that there is more to do than port that
assembler to colorforth, then define colorforth in that assembler.

An assembler is the proper starting point. There is no Metacompiler
without assembler. And an assembler may be enough.
Unless of course you think you have a nice source if it is sprinkled
with
        cd45 2,      12 1, 3135 2,


> Mark

Groetjes Albert
--
Albert van der Horst,Oranjestr 8,3511 RA UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- like all pyramid schemes -- ultimately falters.
albert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

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