Re: single-xt approach in the standard

On 22/09/2024 5:54 pm, Anton Ertl 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.
 
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

The only guidance a standard can give is on duplicating the past.  I see
no value in creating a new forth simply to do that.  As an individual one
has the opportunity to bring something new that's not merely repetition.
At the very least one can avoid repeating the same mistakes.