4 ms·

I suspect the attempts to standardize it and the ANSI standard actually held back Forth somewhat.. I preferred Chuck Moore's forth or forth implementations that

by fouc 6y ago

I suspect the attempts to standardize it and the ANSI standard actually held back Forth somewhat.. I preferred Chuck Moore's forth or forth implementations that eschewed closely to his philosophy.

RodgerTheGreat 6y ago
Agreed. If you ossify what Forth is with an elaborate, prescriptive standard, you lose flexibility; the language can no longer be simplified and reshaped to suit needs.
user982 6y ago
eschewed -> hewed. I wouldn't normally point typos out, but this one inverts your meaning.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > > forth implementations that eschewed closely to his philosophy. > this [typo] inverts your meaning. Actually it doesn't. "forth implementations that eschewed his philosophy" would, but "eschewed closely to" expands to "ommited [stuff] in a manner close to", where stuff would presumably mean (ANSI standard) features. So it's: "forth implementations that eschewed [junk] in a manner close to [what] his philosophy [suggests]". "Hewed" is also fairly correct (and less confusable), though.
  - qotgalaxy 6y ago
    Nah.
- fouc 6y ago
  Ah thanks!
ampdepolymerase 6y ago
Chuck Moore should release his colorForth OKAD EDA suite into the public domain as soon as possible. He is not getting any younger and things like Google's Skywater collaboration could really help in popularizing low-overhead self-contained systems.
- throwaway17_17 6y ago
  I agree that I would like to see the colorForth suite in the public domain. At the same time, there are some additional things I want from a prospective language for doing low-overhead systems. I’ve been working on a semi-Forth inspired language and IDE to accompany it, but my hope is it will appeal to a modern audience with additional features, while still maintaining the ability to do extremely customizable systems as the programmer requires.
  - kragen 6y ago
    colorForth itself is in the public domain; it's just OKAD that isn't.
    - throwaway17_17 6y ago
      That’s great, I didn’t know the implementation of colorForth was In the public domain. The OKAD layout stuff would be really cool to see, but I don’t have a practical use for it, but I’m always looking for language implementations to dissect.
veltas 6y ago
I am critical of many decisions of the standard, however I disagree that it has held it back. The effort to standardise has been useful and it benefits Forth that there is now a common language for e.g. new learners to start with, before trying out more exotic Forths. Furthermore, the language the standard defines is essentially as useful (or more useful than) many of the idiomatic Forths out there, all inspired by Chuck Moore's earlier Forth. Chuck Moore's later Forths were attempts to further simplify Forth and take alternative approaches that simply aren't as useful or applicable to the core of Forth programmers, but that Chuck enjoys. He's often said that he makes his Forths for himself and not anyone else, e.g. why he would write a color-based Forth when some people are color-blind. There have been some more applicable and less applicable factorisations, and I see his continuing influence around in different Forths; some standard, some not.
- yiyus 6y ago
  In my opinion, both of you are right. The issue with the standard is not if it is a good or a bad standard; the whole concept of standardization goes against Chuck's approach of writing your own Forth fitted to the problem at hand. However, I think there is no discussion in that the industry preferred a standard to this unlimited freedom, so ANSI-FORTH really helped Forth in industrial settings. In other words: the standard held back the concept of Forth by Chuck Moore, but it helped to push forward the concept of Forth as an industrial product. A very grey area...
- fouc 6y ago
  I think the problem is that people going the standardization route were trying to build abstractions. Unfortunately most abstractions built in forth tended to feel rather cumbersome and ineffective to me. What Chuck Moore mostly did was focus on simplifying the problem such that he can avoid as much abstraction as possible. Which isn't a very accessible way of development perhaps. I'm not sure if there's a good middle ground between these two approaches..
  - veltas 6y ago
    Can you be specific?

by fouc 6y ago

I suspect the attempts to standardize it and the ANSI standard actually held back Forth somewhat.. I preferred Chuck Moore's forth or forth implementations that eschewed closely to his philosophy.

RodgerTheGreat 6y ago

Agreed. If you ossify what Forth is with an elaborate, prescriptive standard, you lose flexibility; the language can no longer be simplified and reshaped to suit needs.

user982 6y ago

eschewed -> hewed. I wouldn't normally point typos out, but this one inverts your meaning.

a1369209993 6y ago
> > forth implementations that eschewed closely to his philosophy. > this [typo] inverts your meaning. Actually it doesn't. "forth implementations that eschewed his philosophy" would, but "eschewed closely to" expands to "ommited [stuff] in a manner close to", where stuff would presumably mean (ANSI standard) features. So it's: "forth implementations that eschewed [junk] in a manner close to [what] his philosophy [suggests]". "Hewed" is also fairly correct (and less confusable), though.
- qotgalaxy 6y ago
  Nah.
fouc 6y ago
Ah thanks!

ampdepolymerase 6y ago

Chuck Moore should release his colorForth OKAD EDA suite into the public domain as soon as possible. He is not getting any younger and things like Google's Skywater collaboration could really help in popularizing low-overhead self-contained systems.

throwaway17_17 6y ago
I agree that I would like to see the colorForth suite in the public domain. At the same time, there are some additional things I want from a prospective language for doing low-overhead systems. I’ve been working on a semi-Forth inspired language and IDE to accompany it, but my hope is it will appeal to a modern audience with additional features, while still maintaining the ability to do extremely customizable systems as the programmer requires.
- kragen 6y ago
  colorForth itself is in the public domain; it's just OKAD that isn't.
  - throwaway17_17 6y ago
    That’s great, I didn’t know the implementation of colorForth was In the public domain. The OKAD layout stuff would be really cool to see, but I don’t have a practical use for it, but I’m always looking for language implementations to dissect.

veltas 6y ago

I am critical of many decisions of the standard, however I disagree that it has held it back. The effort to standardise has been useful and it benefits Forth that there is now a common language for e.g. new learners to start with, before trying out more exotic Forths. Furthermore, the language the standard defines is essentially as useful (or more useful than) many of the idiomatic Forths out there, all inspired by Chuck Moore's earlier Forth. Chuck Moore's later Forths were attempts to further simplify Forth and take alternative approaches that simply aren't as useful or applicable to the core of Forth programmers, but that Chuck enjoys. He's often said that he makes his Forths for himself and not anyone else, e.g. why he would write a color-based Forth when some people are color-blind. There have been some more applicable and less applicable factorisations, and I see his continuing influence around in different Forths; some standard, some not.

yiyus 6y ago
In my opinion, both of you are right. The issue with the standard is not if it is a good or a bad standard; the whole concept of standardization goes against Chuck's approach of writing your own Forth fitted to the problem at hand. However, I think there is no discussion in that the industry preferred a standard to this unlimited freedom, so ANSI-FORTH really helped Forth in industrial settings. In other words: the standard held back the concept of Forth by Chuck Moore, but it helped to push forward the concept of Forth as an industrial product. A very grey area...
fouc 6y ago
I think the problem is that people going the standardization route were trying to build abstractions. Unfortunately most abstractions built in forth tended to feel rather cumbersome and ineffective to me. What Chuck Moore mostly did was focus on simplifying the problem such that he can avoid as much abstraction as possible. Which isn't a very accessible way of development perhaps. I'm not sure if there's a good middle ground between these two approaches..
- veltas 6y ago
  Can you be specific?