#Forth vs C
2 messages in this thread
Thanks…
I really do like MultiForth. I wish the Forth community could agree to
some standardized extensions (like the MultiForth locals, quans, I/O
etc…). Software companies are reluctant to use Forth and be dependent
upon a single vendor.
By the way, the Macintosh version of MultiForth does have structs. I
allways avoid floating point except where it's a must (high resolution CAD)
and then I'd rather use a co-processor direct.
I authored 2 games in '85 for the Mac written in Forth. Mac Challanger (a
flight simulator) and Pyramid of Peril (a real time, first person
adventure). On the Amiga I wrote a CAD program in 'C' (Aegis Draw/Draw
Plus etc…) because the program was highly complex (structs and linked
lists everywhere), unfortunitly needed floating point, and needed to
support several compilers. Forth needs the equilivent of STDIO, that would
allow programmers to move between machines and versions of Forth and
maintain compatability. My fustration with the lack of market reality
within the Forth community is compounded when I see the success of Forth
like systems ala PostScript.
I have a friend on the IEEE Forth standards team who asked me what I wanted
to see in a standard to make Forth more popular. I told him thay should
adopt a syntax compatable with PostScript and provide a set of standard,
optional extensions. This was considered heresay. But I still think it
might work. Anyway I miss Forth and wish it well…. William Volk
I am really glad to hear that you have so much experience with Forth. I
can understnad how the lack of standard IO made you turn away from Forth to
C. Forth is still in its infancy and the standards are not YET there. I
hope to change that. That is partially why I started this discussion. When
more than one company supports a more complete Forth, I really think you
will see alot more development done in the language. Which brings me to
the question, "would you be willing to disclose the name and address of
your friend on the IEEE Forth standard's committee?" I would like to
whisper a few things in that body's ears. If not, is there a way for the
common man to bring up suggestions to that committee?
Double precision (64 bit) fixed point operators is one thing that MF
doesn't have on the Amiga that I am working on right now. This will
increase your dynamic range from 4.295 E+09 to 1.845 E+19. That's ten
billion times the resolution. This task should not be any more difficult
(or slow) than doing 16 bit fixed point Forth on 8 bit machines that don't
have "word" operators. This still doesn't take care of your need for
multiple compilers.
Interestingly, the "to be completed next year" program that I have only
started on is a CAD program in Forth. I own Aegis Draw Plus, but it is too
buggy for the work I am involved with. Perhaps I expected too much, but I
am trying to use it in an industrial control market where I currently have
some two to three hundred prints that I (and coworkers) need to store and
keep updated. I have dug in and refused to buy an I*M and AutoCAD (nice),
so I must now work on my own CAD program. I hope that I haven't bitten off
more than I can chew! Before I give up on Draw+, I bought my copy in
November of '87. Have there been any real additions (even bug squashes)
since then?
Thank you for all of your comments. Those of us that are sticking with the
language (fanatics, if you will) hope to make the compiler and standards
people catch up to what are needs are real soon now. It won't happen
tommorow, but we keep at it. I hope, when that day comes, you'll come back
and Forth with us.