Re: single-xt approach in the standard

In article <2024Sep22.095431@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:

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.

There are other reasons to be elective. It is fine to have systems
available where everything is present, like gforth.
Small systems however have a place too, where only carefully selected
words are implemented, leaving a system that is a compromise between
being learnable and powerful. A library mechanism helps too.

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.

This is not even a choice in flash based systems. The noforth
model strives to use DOES> and has as little restrictions as
possible. In a many programs the DOES> pointer is filled in once.
If that pointer doesn't change it can be stored in flash.

>
- anton

--
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.