Re: "A Forth OS In 46 Bytes"

On 27/05/2025 10:33 pm, Alexis wrote:

 
Thought this community might be interested in this:
 
"[Philippe] doesn’t take a strong stance on whether this should
technically qualify as a Forth implementation, given that the base
implementation lacks stacks, dictionaries, and the ability to define
words. However, it does have an outer and inner interpreter, the ability
to compile and execute code, and most importantly, 'the simplicity and
hacky feeling of Forth.'"
 
-- https://hackaday.com/2025/05/27/a-forth-os-in-46-bytes/

Interesting in that Forth still has a name and reputation with which folks
want to be associated.

Whether the reputation is deserved is another matter.  A reason Moore gives
for leaving Forth Inc was 'Forth started simple, gradually accreting layers
of complexity and that became the culture'.  If there's a gene for simplicity
it hasn't passed down the generations.  We admire the Diogenes of the world.
Endlessly listen to their admonishments.  But God forbid actually living that.