albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

> If you design a Forth-like language from scratch that is consistent and
> orthogonal, there is a whole bunch more that you have to do.

For instance, start with a grammar, and with dynamic strings as fundamental
data type ... ;-)

minforth wrote:

> albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

>> If you design a Forth-like language from scratch that is consistent and
>> orthogonal, there is a whole bunch more that you have to do.

> For instance, start with a grammar, and with dynamic strings as fundamental
> data type ... ;-)

How to define a grammar for a language that allows to change every word in both
name and behavior, depending on various contexts?

Defining a set of useful libraries, now *that* seems possible.

-marcel

On 27/03/2024 3:38 am, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
> In article <utumib$1s4nd$1@dont-email.me>,
> Buzz McCool <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 3/23/2024 12:49 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
>>> ... IMHO it would be better for HEX. and H. to both
>>> work, without HEX. generating unnecessary warning messages.
>>
>> Given there is a DEC. word, having a HEX. word (that doesn't throw
>> errors) does seem more intuitive / orthogonal than just the H. found in
>> other Forth systems.
>
> Tradition trumps intuition.
>
> If you design a Forth-like language from scratch that is consistent and
> orthogonal, there is a whole bunch more that you have to do.

Intuition is memory - nothing more.

dxf wrote:
[..]
> Intuition is memory - nothing more.

It includes reptile memory.

-marcel

On 3/26/2024 9:38 AM, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
> ... If you design a Forth-like language from scratch that is consistent and
> orthogonal, there is a whole bunch more that you have to do.

Understood.

I'm also perturbed that even fairly recent gforth releases don't support
the h. word at all (see below). So I have to upgrade all my systems to
the most recent gforth (WSL seems to have heartburn with some of them so
I'll have to work that out), or use hex. and get warning messages on
some of them.

$ gforth
Gforth 0.7.9_20220428

255 ok 1
hex. $FF ok

255 ok 1
h.
*the terminal*:9:1: error: Undefined word
>>>h.<<<
Backtrace:
kernel/int.fs:321:10: 0 $7F96CEE5C430 throw

Buzz McCool <buzz_mccool@yahoo.com> writes:
>Given there is a DEC. word, having a HEX. word (that doesn't throw
>errors) does seem more intuitive / orthogonal than just the H. found in
>other Forth systems.

That's a good argument, and the other is that while H. is more in line
with other Forth systems, HEX. is better if you are using several
Gforth systems with different ages. So I have unobsoleted HEX.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2023: https://euro.theforth.net/2023

mhx wrote:

> minforth wrote:

>> albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:

>>> If you design a Forth-like language from scratch that is consistent and
>>> orthogonal, there is a whole bunch more that you have to do.

>> For instance, start with a grammar, and with dynamic strings as fundamental
>> data type ... ;-)

> How to define a grammar for a language that allows to change every word in both
> name and behavior, depending on various contexts?

The first thing to prevent is that standard words can be changed. If you want a variant,
give the variant a different name. E.G.
DUP = fixed standard in capital letters
dup, Dup, mydup, MYDUP etc = variants

And don't call the Forth-like language FORTH to scare away language lawyers ;-)

On 28/03/2024 4:21 am, mhx wrote:
> dxf wrote:
> [..]
>> Intuition is memory - nothing more.
>
> It includes reptile memory.
>
> -marcel

That accounts for the printf proposals we keep seeing.

On 3/27/2024 11:43 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
> ... So I have unobsoleted HEX.

Once again Anton, I thank you for your attention and consideration.