[FoRK] ridiculous project

Stephen Williams sdw at lig.net
Mon Jul 8 22:40:02 PDT 2013


On 7/8/13 8:56 PM, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
> On 7/7/2013 11:48 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> > Why not FORTH?
>
> Not a bad idea. Having grown up with HP calculators I am happy to deal with an RPN language. But there was (famously) a 4KB 
> BASIC... was there a 4KB FORTH?

If you want compactness with performance and capability, it is hard to beat Forth.  You can fit an interpreter, compiler, and 
plenty of primitives in a very small space.  Hard to find actual numbers, but there are versions of Forth for the Pic and just 
about everything else.  Furthermore, if you wanted to create the most powerful language with the least effort, it is hard to beat.

http://www.forthfreak.net/index.cgi?ForthSystemsAlphabetical
http://christophe.lavarenne.free.fr/ff/
> /very/ small: the executable is less than 16 kilobytes, and if you look inside, it's 40% binary code and 60% embedded source text 

http://zserge.bitbucket.org/j1vm.html
> have enough storage to put virtual machine there (it's about 1K!)
> IVM is designed to be as small as possible (less than 1K) to fit even the smallest micros, and it should bring them to the new 
> level by possibility of running external code.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110724074223/http://flashforth.sourceforge.net/

And if you get used to Forth, you can use it on desktops:
http://www.gnu.org/software/gforth/gforth.html

It would be interesting to merge two of the best known and most successful postfix languages: Forth and Postscript.  Low level 
with high level.

>
> I'll probably end up just doing my own language. It will probably look like some cross between FORTH and HP 67. With strong 
> string primitives in the spirit of SNOBOL.
>
> - Joe

sdw



More information about the FoRK mailing list