Re: single-xt approach in the standard

dxf <dxforth@gmail.com> writes:

IMO small systems are better off with Forth-94.

Small systems pick and choose from standards as they see fit; they
ignore Forth-94 and Forth-2012 requirements in some places, but use
the standard as a guideline in places where compliance is compatible
with the requirements stemming from hardware limitations; in this
way the standard is useful even for those systems and their users.

The separate FP stack has not ever come up as an issue for small
systems that I ever heard of, probably because these systems tend not
to implement the optional Floating-Point wordset.

One example of non-compliance is the way DOES> is implemented on many
flash-based systems; in some systems it does not go with CREATE, but
with <BUILDS, and the use of multiple DOES> on the same word is not
supported.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
   EuroForth 2024: https://euro.theforth.net