11 ms·
If you haven't ever used Forth or made a Forth interpreter, it's a fun project that I recommend doing.
by randrews 6y ago
If you haven't ever used Forth or made a Forth interpreter, it's a fun project that I recommend doing.
- mikewarot 6y agoCan confirm... I wrote Forth/2 for OS/2, it was a hoot once I got it working. 8) It looks like I might be resurrecting "STOICAL", which was targeted at Linux, for Windows...http://stoical.sourceforge.net/documentation.php http://stoical.sourceforge.net/documentation.php It would be nice to see it run under Linux... the C source looks too much like typical "be as clever as possible" macro magic, which my non-C adjusted brain can't hack. I'll re-implement in either assembler, or free pascal. The reason is that STOICAL implements types, arrays, and dictionaries in what seems to be a quite reasonable and sane matter. It does type checking when you want, and seems like it could do object oriented as well, if I can push it that way.
- cblum 6y agoLearning how Forth is implemented and then implementing my own totally blew my mind. I've fallen hard in love with Forth. My greatest motivation to learn Forth inside and out is its value in rebuilding civilization if we ever find ourselves in a place where a significant amount of technology has been lost. I don't think there's a more powerful and yet incredibly simple way to bootstrap a general purpose programming environment than writing a Forth. It's a relatively small amount of knowledge that needs to be preserved, compared to all the complexity that would be needed to have compilers, garbage collectors, and all that jazz again. I mean, that's just my personal take on it.
- ddingus 6y agoI feel the same way. Given a reasonable initial Forth implementation, one can throw a dictionary at it and bring a whole tool chain up. I have seen embedded Forth developers do this on new CPUs and its fast and potent.