71–80 of 89 posts
I remember hearing about a computer called the Jupiter Ace that used Forth. I think it was similar to the ZX Spectrum.
Why did some ancient programming languages emphasize on CAPITAL LETTERS? Was there no "Shift" button on keyboards back then?
In defiance of that statement, I built Forth/2.[1] It was a direct threaded, native code Forth Compiler for OS/2 written in assembler. Brian Matthewson wrote an amazing manual for it, and it found a few dozen users.
Open Firware uses Forth. It's sad, that it didn't win over UEFI. I also think to remember that it was used in movie productions to control movement and other parameters of props.
I remember hearing about a computer called the Jupiter Ace that used Forth. I think it was similar to the ZX Spectrum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In which case, I'm sure you can give some examples.
Is Google down again? Bummer. FORTH is still used to bring up new silicon because of its tiny core, you only need a couple of working assembly instructions to bootstrap yourself into a working system, you could do this entirely in cache or a small static RAM if you don't have a working memory controller yet. It is also used all over the place in embedded controllers, https://arduino-forth.com/ , http://www.piclist.co…
I very much doubt it.
My first programming languages were x86 assembly and Forth. My Dad was into Forth, and I learned programming from him. I wrote several x86 Forth systems for DOS as a teenager, culminating in a somewhat-polished ANS compatible one I called "Third": https://github.com/benhoyt/third -- it's kind of amazing being able to have a fully bootstrapped Forth compiler (including an assembler) in a couple thousand lines of code.…
OK, how did you build kernel.com?
My first programming languages were x86 assembly and Forth. My Dad was into Forth, and I learned programming from him. I wrote several x86 Forth systems for DOS as a teenager, culminating in a somewhat-polished ANS compatible one I called "Third": https://github.com/benhoyt/third -- it's kind of amazing being able to have a fully bootstrapped Forth compiler (including an assembler) in a couple thousand lines of code.…
I just take a look at third's source code. Looks interesting. When bootstrapping, kernel.com is called. OK, how did you build kernel.com?
Update: actually, more likely it was built using the meta compiler running on top of one of my previous Forths (I wrote a few). It's been too long to remember exact details, and I didn't use revision control back then. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is Google down again? Bummer. FORTH is still used to bring up new silicon because of its tiny core, you only need a couple of working assembly instructions to bootstrap yourself into a working system, you could do this entirely in cache or a small static RAM if you don't have a working memory controller yet. It is also used all over the place in embedded controllers, https://arduino-forth.com/ , http://www.piclist.co…
Did you forget what the OP asked? Is anyone using Forth in production? I very much doubt it.
Not everything is web based and not everybody is part of the hype cycle.
Since you're asking 'anyone' one example should be enough to satisfy you with proof: every IBM Power series system has Open Firmware on it which you can boot into: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/power9/0009-ESS?topic=asmi-power... . Note that that doesn't even mention Forth by name.
Also note that the world is a lot larger than just the English speaking part of it, and that bringing up new systems is usually transitory: as soon as you can bootstrap yourself out of a FORTH environment you do so because it is a bit limiting.
Finally, as long as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_X-ray_Observatory Chandra is still online at least someone is using FORTH in production.
It's just one of many space missions where FORTH plays a role.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neat, I suppose, but... In nearly 40 years as a professional programmer, the problem has never been the syntax. It's always the semantics. (I mean, yes, if you're doing something like matrix multiplication it's nicer to be able to say A = B + C * D; rather than having to explicitly spell out which functions you're calling. I have never actually hit that situation, though.) Do I just lack imagination? Is this domain-s…
What makes computer languages odd is in having syntax persistently be "born" in tandem with a desire for a certain semantics, and the two being hard to separate upon close inspection. You have to know the domain and have the experience to see when and where it occurs, but a need for additional syntax always appears beyond a certain point. The reason why this is the case is because the computer's ultimate use lies in…