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

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#81

Post by RodgerTheGreat »

throwaway17_17 wrote: post #75
RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a slightly off topic question for you, do you think the attributes you named are required for having a “Forth” or are they just the most common implementation characteristics? My current pet language project certainly looks Forth-like, with different semantics and a modal dependent type system, but is not threaded nor does it have the traditional stacks and dictionary. I don’t know if I’d call it a Forth, but…

"The dictionary" can be implemented in many ways; simple or clever, namespaced or not. A language without any form of local or global name binding would presumably need quotations ala Joy/Factor, which means your stacks probably have to store objects rather than raw numbers. This tips the scale in the direction of a higher-level language.

The stacks are likewise a description of semantics rather than implementation. Some Forths keep the top few stack elements in registers to reduce overhead. If the return stack isn't user-accessible (r> >r etc.) then, again, you're straying closer to a higher-level functional language than a Forth.

There are many kinds of threaded code. For example, subroutine-threaded code uses native subroutine call instructions in word bodies and does away with the inner interpreter. Threaded code is a natural consequence of disentangling conventional "activation records" into two stacks which grow and shrink independently. You could have a Forth without threaded code, I suppose.

Some Forths attempt to "seal off" or otherwise obscure some parts of their own internal workings from "user programs". This is more common among dialects which try to adhere to ANS specs, like GForth. This isn't a total anathema to Forthiness, but it tends to introduce additional complexity. If a word is useful for implementing a forth kernel, why couldn't it be useful in implementing other functionality, too?

If you're building something higher-level which vaguely resembles Forth, it's probably better to describe it as a concatenative language. A dependent type system doesn't sound very Forthy, imo.

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#82

Post by [deleted] »

csb6 wrote: post #77
pwdisswordfish2 wrote: post #18

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 al…

This is the perfect comment - pedantic, snarky, and more focused on the superficial features of the article than the content, mixed in with some grammatical pseudo-psychology. Check, check, check, and check! This is peak tediousness. Well done!

[deleted]

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#83

Post by lebuffon »

RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #81
throwaway17_17 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a slightly off topic question for you, do you think the attributes you named are required for having a “Forth” or are they just the most common implementation characteristics? My current pet language project certainly looks Forth-like, with different semantics and a modal dependent type system, but is not threaded nor does it have the traditional stacks and dictionary. I don’t know if I’d call it a Forth, but…

"The dictionary" can be implemented in many ways; simple or clever, namespaced or not. A language without any form of local or global name binding would presumably need quotations ala Joy/Factor, which means your stacks probably have to store objects rather than raw numbers. This tips the scale in the direction of a higher-level language. The stacks are likewise a description of semantics rather than implementation.…

"You could have a Forth without threaded code, I suppose."

VFX Forth from MPE UK is a native code generator. It evaluates source code and emits inline code or calls depending what you tell the compiler to do. It can expand everything to inline if you tell it but your code would get much bigger.

This is the state of the art for Forth compilers today.

Homemade systems and older systems use threaded code.

I have no affiliation with MPE.

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#84

Post by RodgerTheGreat »

garmaine wrote: post #80

Forth is Lisp, but with composition as the basic operator instead of application. The result, of course, is a wildly different language but one which inspired the same degree of fanaticism among its adherents in their search for simplicity and elegance. A truly under appreciated language imho.

I rather disagree with your first sentence. Forth is not Lisp, nor is Prolog or APL Lisp, and none of these languages are one short conceptual leap away from the others. Even a very rudimentary Forth can express concepts which have only hazy correspondences in a Lisp, like words which twiddle the return stack or yield a variable number of results on the parameter stack.

I find it misleading at best to casually intimate that Lisp is some kind of ur-language which exemplifies simplicity and thus lies at the root of any design space. Fans of Lisp are overly eager to stake claim upon ideas which do not belong to their language.

I don't mean to bite your head off about it; this is just a trope I find tremendously frustrating.

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#85

Post by jcranmer »

slim wrote: post #27
krick wrote: post #24

I thought this is pretty fun project and the idea is just cool right away, but then I went on reading and was surprised by the fact it seems the author is serious. I would be really curious to hear his opinion on why the supply chains should collapse before 2030. Obviously, there wouldn't be a shortage of people in the comments who can start speculating on why it might happen, and, of course, I myself also can provid…

he gives a book name "Comment tout peut s'effondrer" by Pablo Servigne, Éditions du Seuil, 2015 https://collapseos.org/why.html

There's apparently an English translation released very recently: "How everything can collapse: A manual for our times."

I haven't read either version, but piecing together the thesis from reviews, it seems to be a somewhat more evolved form of Malthusian catastrophe and Peak Oil(/Energy), with a dash of climate change alarmism [1] and Piketty-style concern over inequality. And technology won't save us because... well, I haven't found anyone who can elucidate that concern. It seems to me that the commenter who wrote "this book seems to be only for those who were convinced beforehand" has it right.

[1] I don't like using "alarmism" here because it suggests that I don't think it's a problem (I do), but I can't think of a better succinct description of "if we don't fix this literally tomorrow, we're totally screwed."

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#86

Post by pkage »

sahil-kang wrote: post #73
zentiggr wrote: post #65

I think I've had my own moment of clarity that spans both Forth(s) and Lisp(s) and explains why neither is as common as other languages. In most common languages, there is a complicated base spec that covers many cases and defines a broad range of affordances, plus libraries and libraries that expand on an already fleshed out collection of tools and etc. Forths and Lisps give you the core of an environment, and let/e…

I think you can draw this ‘core of an environment’ parallel between Forth and Scheme: both are small languages and they emphasize growing the language to the problem domain [1]. Common Lisp, on the other hand, is a large language: implementations provide much more than a foundational core, and a fairly comprehensive list of libraries exists. I think RPG’s Worse Is Better highlights some of the reasons why CL isn’t as…

Off topic, but this (from RPG's Worse is Better) sounds very familiar:

> Part of the problem stems from our very dear friends in the artificial intelligence (AI) business. AI has a number of good approaches to formalizing human knowledge and problem solving behavior. However, AI does not provide a panacea in any area of its applicability. Some early promoters of AI to the commercial world raised expectation levels too high. These expectations had to do with the effectiveness and deliverability of expert-system-based applications.

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#87

Post by throwaway17_17 »

RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #81
throwaway17_17 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a slightly off topic question for you, do you think the attributes you named are required for having a “Forth” or are they just the most common implementation characteristics? My current pet language project certainly looks Forth-like, with different semantics and a modal dependent type system, but is not threaded nor does it have the traditional stacks and dictionary. I don’t know if I’d call it a Forth, but…

"The dictionary" can be implemented in many ways; simple or clever, namespaced or not. A language without any form of local or global name binding would presumably need quotations ala Joy/Factor, which means your stacks probably have to store objects rather than raw numbers. This tips the scale in the direction of a higher-level language. The stacks are likewise a description of semantics rather than implementation.…

I don’t think you’re wrong in your assessment. But just for fun I will point out that I probably assumed a bit to far when I stated no dictionary, there is a name binding mechanisms for ‘words’, but I have a quote form as well. Also, while I would say the language is functional, it is also intended to be low level, ideally, the base of the language is a dependently typed pseudo-assembly language, but the modal type system and homoiconic syntax enable building words that are semi-macros. It is, at this point, basically my attempt to blend Forth’s philosophical leanings with category/type theory. But thanks for the reply, outside perspectives are always great for me to hear.

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#88

Post by garmaine »

RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #84
garmaine wrote: post #80

Forth is Lisp, but with composition as the basic operator instead of application. The result, of course, is a wildly different language but one which inspired the same degree of fanaticism among its adherents in their search for simplicity and elegance. A truly under appreciated language imho.

I rather disagree with your first sentence. Forth is not Lisp, nor is Prolog or APL Lisp, and none of these languages are one short conceptual leap away from the others. Even a very rudimentary Forth can express concepts which have only hazy correspondences in a Lisp, like words which twiddle the return stack or yield a variable number of results on the parameter stack. I find it misleading at best to casually intima…

The core of Lisp is a small set of rules about abstraction and application using lists. Forth, at its core, can be formalized with the exact same set of rules (one to one correspondence) but with stacks and composition as the operator. The languages are very VERY different, but there is a similar bare bone formal framework at the bottom.

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#89

Post by c2the3rd »

zentiggr wrote: post #65

I think I've had my own moment of clarity that spans both Forth(s) and Lisp(s) and explains why neither is as common as other languages. In most common languages, there is a complicated base spec that covers many cases and defines a broad range of affordances, plus libraries and libraries that expand on an already fleshed out collection of tools and etc. Forths and Lisps give you the core of an environment, and let/e…

Why not say "Every ~~Forth~~ program is its own DSL for accomplishing its work."? For moderately complicated programs in any language you choose, it can take a long time to grok how the literal code relates to solving the conceptual problem. No language can build in every abstraction, and no programmer has time to learn them all.

I think you are close to part of an answer, but it isn't because Forth and Lisp expect one to do more work than other languages. If anything, they expect one to do less. The problem is programmers feel lost because there is no way to differentiate the bedrock of the language from higher abstractions. C has operators and statements and keywords that tell you there is nothing "underneath" what you are looking at. With Forth, everything is words. With Lisp, everything is lists.

Re: Collapse OS – Why Forth?

#90

Post by lmohseni »

jcranmer wrote: post #85
slim wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

he gives a book name "Comment tout peut s'effondrer" by Pablo Servigne, Éditions du Seuil, 2015 https://collapseos.org/why.html

There's apparently an English translation released very recently: "How everything can collapse: A manual for our times." I haven't read either version, but piecing together the thesis from reviews, it seems to be a somewhat more evolved form of Malthusian catastrophe and Peak Oil(/Energy), with a dash of climate change alarmism [1] and Piketty-style concern over inequality. And technology won't save us because... wel…

> technology won’t save us because...

I hope I’m not uncharitably interpreting your comment, but are you saying that technology will be some sort of panacea?

Post reply on HN