Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Collapse OS – Why Forth?

collapseos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 172 posts

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#11

Post by dang »

ojnabieoot wrote: post #5

I hate this headline but the project is very cool. People like me who were ignorant should start here instead of the Github to get a better sense of the design goals (and why they are using Forth): https://collapseos.org/forth.html

Ok, we'll change the url to that from https://github.com/hsoft/collapseos/commit/d777a74be30cefc1f.... Thanks!

(Submitted title was "Collapse OS was entirely rewritten in Forth, a 50 year old language".)

The project itself was discussed last year at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21182628.

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#12

Post by tarkin2 »

I love this project. Thank you for posting it. The idea of a post collapse operating system reminds me of slackware/subgenius’s old slogan: “...the world ends tomorrow and you may die!”

I’ll be trying to compile collapseos, write forth and load slackware on floppys in a few years then. (Will systemd survive civilisation’s collapse, especially when it caused it, that is the question....)

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#13

Post by [deleted] »

ojnabieoot wrote: post #5

I hate this headline but the project is very cool. People like me who were ignorant should start here instead of the Github to get a better sense of the design goals (and why they are using Forth): https://collapseos.org/forth.html

[deleted]

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#14

Post by crousto »

RandomGuyDTB wrote: post #2

It's odd to highlight that Forth is 50 years old, considering C is 48 years old and still in very heavy use in operating systems development.

Collapse OS was initially written in assembly for the Z80, a microprocessor first launched in 1976. The fact that Forth is 6 years older than the Z80 seems interesting enough of a step further back in time to be hightlighted.

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#15

Post by RodgerTheGreat »

CameronNemo wrote: post #7
RandomGuyDTB wrote: post #2

It's odd to highlight that Forth is 50 years old, considering C is 48 years old and still in very heavy use in operating systems development.

Perhaps Forth has changed less than C in that time. The C of 48 years ago can look quite different from modern C.

There has never been one Forth. In a world with N Forth programmers, one can expect roughly N implementations of Forth. Perhaps closer to 2*N. An ANS spec exists, but most Forth programmers would say it misses the point.

Forth is a collection of ideas and philosophies toward programming as much as it is a language. Two stacks and a dictionary. Threaded code (direct, indirect, token, subroutine, etc...). Collapsed abstractions. No sealed black boxes. Tight factoring.

C has changed. Forth is everchanging.

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#16

Post by downerending »

RandomGuyDTB wrote: post #2

It's odd to highlight that Forth is 50 years old, considering C is 48 years old and still in very heavy use in operating systems development.

I suspect that a lot of readers have no idea how old it is.

(I, on the other hand, have to be reminded that 50 years have passed.)

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#17

Post by undershirt »

> Forth doesn't elegantly describe complex algorithms… However, this mental pain does makes you question your need for complexity… This is something that I think few developers are familiar with and is hard to describe with words. It needs to be experienced.

Nice framing, that it’s not an intellectual argument you can make to justify the benefits of drawbacks (i.e. an infamous red flag of stockholm syndrome), so you have to point to the experience of the thing itself (“you had to be there”).

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#18

Post by pwdisswordfish2 »

https://collapseos.org/why.html

"That being said, I don't consider it unreasonable to not believe that collapse is likely to happen by 2030, so please, don't feel attacked by my beliefs."

Triple negative? Quadruple negative? (If we count the second "don't".)

Compare something like:

"I consider it reasonable to believe that collapse is unlikely to happen by 2030, so please, don't feel attacked by my beliefs."

It is almost as if the grammatical structure reflects the life perspective of the author.

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#19

Post by lstodd »

RandomGuyDTB wrote: post #2

It's odd to highlight that Forth is 50 years old, considering C is 48 years old and still in very heavy use in operating systems development.

It's odd to compare C and Forth. They are so different.

Edit: as someone below mentioned there can not be a 'Standard Forth'. You just write your own one as you see fit.

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#20

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #15
CameronNemo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps Forth has changed less than C in that time. The C of 48 years ago can look quite different from modern C.

There has never been one Forth. In a world with N Forth programmers, one can expect roughly N implementations of Forth. Perhaps closer to 2*N. An ANS spec exists, but most Forth programmers would say it misses the point. Forth is a collection of ideas and philosophies toward programming as much as it is a language. Two stacks and a dictionary. Threaded code (direct, indirect, token, subroutine, etc...). Collapsed abs…

There has been OpenFirmware.
Post reply on HN