Starting Forth, Thinking Forth 
Author Message
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth

Dear Forthers,

I start reading clf several years ago. From time to time SF and TF are
introduced to newbies, and then the availability of SF and TF will be
discussed and so on. Why don't we solve this problem once and for all?

SF and TF is not the only way to master Forth:
I never read SF and TF. I get information from you all, either in the form
of source code, or manual, or just article in the web site. Thanks. I don't
believe that SF and TF is the only way to master Forth.

SF and TF are outdated, but neutral:
SF and TF are outdated (not ANS Forth or ColorForth), but they are neutral,
not SwiftForth, not GForth, not Win32Forth, not VFXForth, not BigForth, not
Minos, not iForth, not PFE, not kForth, not hForth, not eForth, not Pygmy,
not ColorForth, not Ficl, not SmallForth, not F-PC, and you know more.

SF and TF are important for Forth history:
SF and TF are both good for the museum, like Turbo Pascal, Turbo C (Borland
web site), or HP Calculators (HP museum).

Suggestion:
-    create one neutral Forth complete with documentation that are supported
by most clf regulars. If you don't like my PET4TH, probably THIS from Wil
Baden will do, documentation from Julian Noble and Leo Wong, history from
Forth Inc., and second opinion from Jeff Fox.
-    if you are author, please improve your documentation, and make it free,
probably with Forth trial version
-    never mention SF and TF again in this clf until they are easily
bought/download. The words SF and TF are considered flame material in the
FAQ (people against Forth Inc.)
-    if someone mentions SF and TF in clf, everybody else flood clf with
their own Forth and documentation information, so that newbies distracted
from SF and TF

I am rather embarassed that we can not replace SF and TF, but arguing over
them from time to time :-)

Regards,
Petrus - PET4TH.



Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:51:42 GMT  
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth
Having only just received my TF book last week I cannot comment on its
current relevance; however, it is still available from www.taygeta.com (as
of last week.)  SF is a different story.  I understand that it is a great
primer to the language; but, I am willing to read ANY Forth book that is
also considered to be a good primer.

I have a list of links (some with on-line 'tutorials') but I am not sure
where to start.  So, assuming that SF is not available (which it isn't)
would the NG members mind posting references to more widely available
entry-level Forth books?

Thanks,
Matt


Quote:
> Dear Forthers,

> I start reading clf several years ago. From time to time SF and TF are
> introduced to newbies, and then the availability of SF and TF will be
> discussed and so on. Why don't we solve this problem once and for all?

> SF and TF is not the only way to master Forth:
> I never read SF and TF. I get information from you all, either in the form
> of source code, or manual, or just article in the web site. Thanks. I
don't
> believe that SF and TF is the only way to master Forth.

> SF and TF are outdated, but neutral:
> SF and TF are outdated (not ANS Forth or ColorForth), but they are
neutral,
> not SwiftForth, not GForth, not Win32Forth, not VFXForth, not BigForth,
not
> Minos, not iForth, not PFE, not kForth, not hForth, not eForth, not Pygmy,
> not ColorForth, not Ficl, not SmallForth, not F-PC, and you know more.

> SF and TF are important for Forth history:
> SF and TF are both good for the museum, like Turbo Pascal, Turbo C
(Borland
> web site), or HP Calculators (HP museum).

> Suggestion:
> -    create one neutral Forth complete with documentation that are
supported
> by most clf regulars. If you don't like my PET4TH, probably THIS from Wil
> Baden will do, documentation from Julian Noble and Leo Wong, history from
> Forth Inc., and second opinion from Jeff Fox.
> -    if you are author, please improve your documentation, and make it
free,
> probably with Forth trial version
> -    never mention SF and TF again in this clf until they are easily
> bought/download. The words SF and TF are considered flame material in the
> FAQ (people against Forth Inc.)
> -    if someone mentions SF and TF in clf, everybody else flood clf with
> their own Forth and documentation information, so that newbies distracted
> from SF and TF

> I am rather embarassed that we can not replace SF and TF, but arguing over
> them from time to time :-)

> Regards,
> Petrus - PET4TH.



Thu, 04 Aug 2005 11:07:20 GMT  
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth

Quote:

> Dear Forthers,

> I start reading clf several years ago. From time to time SF and TF are
> introduced to newbies, and then the availability of SF and TF will be
> discussed and so on. Why don't we solve this problem once and for all?

> SF and TF is not the only way to master Forth:
> I never read SF and TF. I get information from you all, either in the form
> of source code, or manual, or just article in the web site. Thanks. I don't
> believe that SF and TF is the only way to master Forth.

> SF and TF are outdated, but neutral:
> SF and TF are outdated (not ANS Forth or ColorForth), but they are neutral,
> not SwiftForth, not GForth, not Win32Forth, not VFXForth, not BigForth, not
> Minos, not iForth, not PFE, not kForth, not hForth, not eForth, not Pygmy,
> not ColorForth, not Ficl, not SmallForth, not F-PC, and you know more.

> SF and TF are important for Forth history:
> SF and TF are both good for the museum, like Turbo Pascal, Turbo C (Borland
> web site), or HP Calculators (HP museum).

> Suggestion:
> -    create one neutral Forth complete with documentation that are supported
> by most clf regulars. If you don't like my PET4TH, probably THIS from Wil
> Baden will do, documentation from Julian Noble and Leo Wong, history from
> Forth Inc., and second opinion from Jeff Fox.
> -    if you are author, please improve your documentation, and make it free,
> probably with Forth trial version
> -    never mention SF and TF again in this clf until they are easily
> bought/download. The words SF and TF are considered flame material in the
> FAQ (people against Forth Inc.)
> -    if someone mentions SF and TF in clf, everybody else flood clf with
> their own Forth and documentation information, so that newbies distracted
> from SF and TF

> I am rather embarassed that we can not replace SF and TF, but arguing over
> them from time to time :-)

I thought I'd throw in some "newbie" perspective.  I have a bit of an
advantage, having decided to pay for the SwiftX release from Forth.inc
(with the good documentation you'd expect from a commercial release),
but am trying to program Forth for the first time, although I am a
long-time computer veteran with a background in hardware design,
embedded systems, driver software, and RTOS programming.

I have Brodie's Starting Forth and Thinking Forth, the Forth
Progarmmmer's Handbook and Forth Application Techniques from Forth,
Inc., and the PDF documentation that came with SwiftX.

I have personally found that with my background in programming, Starting
Forth and Forth Application Techniuqes have been a bit to introductory
to be of much use.  I primarily reference the Forth Programmer's
Handbook (along with the SwiftX specific documentation) when actually
programming, and I have found Thinking Forth to be an excellent resource
to browse (typically when I have time available and am not trying to
code a specific routine) and provide guidance in not only fundamental
problem solving techniques (applicable to pretty much any language and
even hardware design), but also as a good reference for how complex
things should be done in Forth.

In my brief experience (about 4-6 months actually programming), Thinking
Forth has primarily taken the place of "example code", which I have
found is much easier to come by for other languages (even things like
python and Ruby, not to mention C, basic, pascal, etc) than for Forth.

At this point, I'm not sure if the problem is lack of code, or my lack
of ability to comprehend it as a complete Forth newbie (I suspect the
latter, now that I have begun to get my head wrapped around the Forth
way of doing things), but it *IS* a problem, regardless.  In providing
not only reasonably complex code examples, but clear descriptions of the
reasoning behind the code, Thinking Forth has done more to get me in the
"forth mindset" than any other reference.

If recommeding reading material to another newbie, I would start with
Thinking Forth, put the ANS standard and the Forth Programmer's Handbook
on about equal footing, and finish with any distribution specific
documentation and/or source-code as the ultimate reference.

Sidenote:  IIRC, the PDF version of the Forth Handbook from Forth, Inc.
comes bundled with the various SwiftX evaluation versions available
freely online (from the Forth, Ink. FTP site).  Would it perhaps be
possible to provide this freely as a seperate download (obviously
subject to Forth, Inc.'s approval), or perhaps point folks to this
excellent reference otherwise "burried" inside a trial-version download?

--
Charles Steinkuehler



Thu, 04 Aug 2005 11:31:44 GMT  
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth

Quote:

>SF and TF is not the only way to master Forth:
>I never read SF and TF. I get information from you all, either in the form
>of source code, or manual, or just article in the web site. Thanks. I don't
>believe that SF and TF is the only way to master Forth.

Well, if you can make some recommendations without mentioning SF, do
so.

Quote:
>Suggestion:
>-    create one neutral Forth complete with documentation that are supported
>by most clf regulars. If you don't like my PET4TH, probably THIS from Wil
>Baden will do,

Many Forth systems have aspired to be a common or neutral
implementation, e.g., Gforth.  But apparently you don't perceive it as
such.  I don't think you can have an implementation-neutral
implementation.  At some point implementation choices are made, and
there the supposedly-neutral implementation has to take sides.

However, we don't have to have a "neutral" implementation, so we can
write introductory books for it, and the user can use any ANS Forth
implementation with the introduction.

Concerning the implementations you mention: PET4TH works on only one
OS. ThisForth is (at least) extremely slow; is this really a good
system to present to newbies.

Quote:
> documentation from Julian Noble and Leo Wong,

The tutorial that comes with Gforth targets ANS Forth (Gforth features
are mentioned in a few places).  It has been mentioned favourably in
this newsgroup lately.

Quote:
>-    if you are author, please improve your documentation, and make it free,
>probably with Forth trial version

Gforth's tutorial is free.  You can get it with or without Gforth,
which is also free.

Quote:
>-    never mention SF and TF again in this clf until they are easily
>bought/download. The words SF and TF are considered flame material in the
>FAQ (people against Forth Inc.)

I guess SF is mentioned often, because many people learned Forth with
SF.  I did not (I used "Die Programmiersprache Forth" by Ronald Zech),
so I don't recommend SF.

TF is more of a software engineering text than a Forth text, and is
not (completely) replaced by Forth introductions.  Fortunately it
still seems to be available, despite the demise of FIG.  I don't think
one should recommend not mentioning it.  However, when someone
mentions it, they should also mention where to get it
(<http://www.taygeta.com/thinking_forth.html>).

- 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



Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:53:01 GMT  
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth
Quote:
----- Original Message -----

Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth

Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 16:53
Subject: Re: Starting Forth, Thinking Forth

> Many Forth systems have aspired to be a common or neutral
> implementation, e.g., Gforth.  But apparently you don't perceive it as
> such.  I don't think you can have an implementation-neutral
> implementation.  At some point implementation choices are made, and
> there the supposedly-neutral implementation has to take sides.

What I mean with neutral is that it is not considered as competitor. GForth
is powerful, do you think commercial Forth vendors like to suggest GForth to
newbies?

> Concerning the implementations you mention: PET4TH works on only one
> OS. ThisForth is (at least) extremely slow; is this really a good
> system to present to newbies.

That's it. So does SF and TF, both have problems, but they are mentioned
again and again. While you only promote GForth, and Forth Inc only promote
their manuals. It would be wonderful if there is one system and manual for
newbies to learn, and later they can switch to whichever Forth they choose.

Wil does not have Forth system to sell and he is surely capable of making
his system faster.
So does Leo Wong, Julian Noble. Commercial Forth vendors also don't have
problem with their works, because they can not be considered competitor to
their products. But, wait a minute, assuming ThisForth becomes more powerful
than GForth, do you suggest ThisForth for newbies?

It seems that my idea does not work. OK, I give up.

Regards,
Petrus - PET4TH.



Thu, 04 Aug 2005 20:43:06 GMT  
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth

Quote:

>Having only just received my TF book last week I cannot comment on its
>current relevance; however, it is still available from www.taygeta.com (as
>of last week.)  SF is a different story.  I understand that it is a great
>primer to the language; but, I am willing to read ANY Forth book that is
>also considered to be a good primer.

Thinking Forth is a good book that likely goes unread by many as it is
a "Forth Book" and not a general programming book, due to the title and
some of the examples. But actually it seems to me to be a good book on
attitude towards programming in general.

Design down, build up, test in pieces while things are easy to fix, and
so on. It just happens to use Forth in some examples and the principles
are those that Forth (advocates) claim. They can apply to any language.
The only difference may be that factoring is cheaper in Forth than some
other languages. A word can call a word can call a word can call a word
and it's not a big overhead. A call to another word is cheap. At least
that is the case with the older threaded Forth. I'm not sure how the
newer Forths are, but I expect they keep the attitude that factoring
should not be discouraged.

--
PN



Thu, 04 Aug 2005 21:40:49 GMT  
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth

Quote:


> ...
> Design down, build up, test in pieces while things are easy to fix, and
> so on. It just happens to use Forth in some examples and the principles
> are those that Forth (advocates) claim. They can apply to any language.
> The only difference may be that factoring is cheaper in Forth than some
> other languages. A word can call a word can call a word can call a word
> and it's not a big overhead. A call to another word is cheap. At least
> that is the case with the older threaded Forth. I'm not sure how the
> newer Forths are, but I expect they keep the attitude that factoring
> should not be discouraged.

In modern subroutine-threaded/compile-to-code Forths calls are
cheaper than in indirect-threaded implementation, and hence factoring
is promoted even more.

Cheers,
Elizabeth



Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:34:09 GMT  
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth

Quote:

>> Many Forth systems have aspired to be a common or neutral
>> implementation, e.g., Gforth.  But apparently you don't perceive it as
>> such.  I don't think you can have an implementation-neutral
>> implementation.  At some point implementation choices are made, and
>> there the supposedly-neutral implementation has to take sides.

>What I mean with neutral is that it is not considered as competitor. GForth
>is powerful, do you think commercial Forth vendors like to suggest GForth to
>newbies?

I don't think commercial Forth vendors like to suggest any
implementation other than their own, and they usually don't.  Whether
the implementation is powerful or not makes little difference.

Quote:
>That's it. So does SF and TF, both have problems, but they are mentioned
>again and again. While you only promote GForth, and Forth Inc only promote
>their manuals. It would be wonderful if there is one system and manual for
>newbies to learn, and later they can switch to whichever Forth they choose.

The Gforth manual is free.  If you want, you can take it and rip out
any mention of Gforth in order to make it more neutral, and/or make
other changes you deem appropriate (adding stuff specific to some
other implementation, say).

Quote:
>Wil does not have Forth system to sell

Neither do I.

Quote:
>But, wait a minute, assuming ThisForth becomes more powerful
>than GForth, do you suggest ThisForth for newbies?

Probably not.  After all, I usually don't recommend Gforth when
somebody asks for recommendations, unless specific features are
requested where Gforth has mostly-unique strengths.

- 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



Fri, 05 Aug 2005 21:51:09 GMT  
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth

Quote:

> Thinking Forth is a good book that likely goes unread by many as it is
> a "Forth Book" and not a general programming book, due to the title and
> some of the examples. But actually it seems to me to be a good book on
> attitude towards programming in general.

> Design down, build up, test in pieces while things are easy to fix, and
> so on. It just happens to use Forth in some examples and the principles
> are those that Forth (advocates) claim. They can apply to any language.
> The only difference may be that factoring is cheaper in Forth than some
> other languages. A word can call a word can call a word can call a word
> and it's not a big overhead. A call to another word is cheap. At least
> that is the case with the older threaded Forth. I'm not sure how the
> newer Forths are, but I expect they keep the attitude that factoring
> should not be discouraged.

I couldn't agree with you more.  I've always thought that Thinking Forth was/is one of the best practical software
engineering texts ever written.

Peter



Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:23:34 GMT  
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth

Quote:

> Thinking Forth is a good book that likely goes unread by many as it is
> a "Forth Book" and not a general programming book, due to the title and
> some of the examples. But actually it seems to me to be a good book on
> attitude towards programming in general.

> Design down, build up, test in pieces while things are easy to fix, and
> so on. It just happens to use Forth in some examples and the principles
> are those that Forth (advocates) claim. They can apply to any language.
> The only difference may be that factoring is cheaper in Forth than some
> other languages. A word can call a word can call a word can call a word
> and it's not a big overhead. A call to another word is cheap. At least
> that is the case with the older threaded Forth. I'm not sure how the
> newer Forths are, but I expect they keep the attitude that factoring
> should not be discouraged.

I couldn't agree with you more.  I've always thought that Thinking Forth was/is one of the best practical software
engineering texts ever written.

Peter



Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:24:59 GMT  
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth

Quote:


>>Having only just received my TF book last week I cannot comment on its
>>current relevance; however, it is still available from www.taygeta.com (as
>>of last week.)  SF is a different story.  I understand that it is a great
>>primer to the language; but, I am willing to read ANY Forth book that is
>>also considered to be a good primer.

> Thinking Forth is a good book that likely goes unread by many as it is
> a "Forth Book" and not a general programming book, due to the title and
> some of the examples. But actually it seems to me to be a good book on
> attitude towards programming in general.

> Design down, build up, test in pieces while things are easy to fix, and
> so on. It just happens to use Forth in some examples and the principles
> are those that Forth (advocates) claim. They can apply to any language.
> The only difference may be that factoring is cheaper in Forth than some
> other languages. A word can call a word can call a word can call a word
> and it's not a big overhead. A call to another word is cheap. At least
> that is the case with the older threaded Forth. I'm not sure how the
> newer Forths are, but I expect they keep the attitude that factoring
> should not be discouraged.

I couldn't agree with you more.  I've always thought that Thinking Forth was/is one of the best practical software
engineering texts ever written.

Peter



Fri, 05 Aug 2005 22:25:55 GMT  
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth

Quote:

> Dear Forthers,
> I start reading clf several years ago. From time to time SF and TF
> are introduced to newbies, and then the availability of SF and TF
> will be discussed and so on. Why don't we solve this problem once
> and for all?

    Most problems in politics seem to be easy to solve, but
never do get solved. Perhaps this is a political problem. Would
having an electronic version of Leo Brodie's book's for anyone
to download be the solution you are looking for? Or would you
rather have some new books by another author to cover the subject?

Quote:
> SF and TF is not the only way to master Forth:
> I never read SF and TF. I get information from you all, either in the
> form of source code, or manual, or just article in the web site.
> Thanks. I don't believe that SF and TF is the only way to master
> Forth.

   No, its not. Forth was used before "Starting Forth" and
"Thinking Forth" were written. You could have learned to use
Forth by working at an astronomical observatory where Forth was
used to control telescopes and digitize data. Or you could learn
it by decompiling a running Forth system that had no
documentation. Having Leo's two books just made things much easier.

Quote:
> SF and TF are outdated, but neutral:
> SF and TF are outdated (not ANS Forth or ColorForth), but they are
> neutral, not SwiftForth, not GForth, not Win32Forth, not VFXForth,
> not BigForth, not Minos, not iForth, not PFE, not kForth, not hForth,
> not eForth, not Pygmy, not ColorForth, not Ficl, not SmallForth, not
> F-PC, and you know more.

     These are all different and all the same. Forth is not one
thing. It covers all of what is loosely called computer science.
Its not a human language, like Australian English, which has one
version used over a whole continent. Its like Arabic or spoken
German dialects where people who speak the language but live in
different places have trouble understanding each other.

Quote:
> SF and TF are important for Forth history:
> SF and TF are both good for the museum, like Turbo Pascal,
> Turbo C (Borland web site), or HP Calculators (HP museum).

   Well no. "Starting Forth" and "Thinking Forth" are both
examples of well written computer books.  Perhaps if you read
them you might have a better idea of what all the fuss is about.

Quote:
> Suggestion:
> -    create one neutral Forth complete with documentation that
> are supported by most clf regulars. If you don't like my PET4TH,
> probably THIS from Wil Baden will do, documentation from Julian
> Noble and Leo Wong, history from Forth Inc., and second opinion
> from Jeff Fox.

     This has been tried a hundred times. Each new version of
Forth inspires someone to realize he can do it better.

Quote:
> -    if you are author, please improve your documentation, and
> make it free, probably with Forth trial version

     I notice you didn't ask for authors to improve their code.
The improvement of documentation for Forth is the great unsolved
problem. Any version of Forth has some improvement in code
writing, but no version of Forth makes writing documentation easier.

Quote:
> -    never mention SF and TF again in this clf until they are easily
> bought/download. The words SF and TF are considered flame
> material in the FAQ (people against Forth Inc.)
> -    if someone mentions SF and TF in clf, everybody else flood clf
> with their own Forth and documentation information, so that
> newbies distracted from SF and TF

     That is a possibility. But first the newbie has to be asked
what kind of computer he wants to use and what application he
wants to write in Forth. Then specific information can be
provided that is not covered in a book.

Quote:
> I am rather embarassed that we can not replace SF and TF, but
> arguing over them from time to time :-)

     No need to be embarrassed. Instead you should be inspired
by Leo Brodie to write unforgettable documentation.

Quote:
> Regards,
> Petrus - PET4TH.

--



Sat, 06 Aug 2005 05:31:03 GMT  
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth

Quote:
> Probably not.  After all, I usually don't recommend Gforth when
> somebody asks for recommendations, unless specific features are
> requested where Gforth has mostly-unique strengths.

> - anton

What would you recommend ?


Sun, 07 Aug 2005 10:12:03 GMT  
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth

Quote:

>> Probably not.  After all, I usually don't recommend Gforth when
>> somebody asks for recommendations, unless specific features are
>> requested where Gforth has mostly-unique strengths.

>What would you recommend ?

I usualy don't answer when somebody asks for recommendations, unless
specific features are requested where just one specific Forth system
or so fits that I know about (and I know Gforth best).  If many
systems fit, I don't think it is very helpful if every implementor
touts his or her own implementation; in these cases I leave it to the
the users to make recommendations, and in any case there is the
Systems FAQ.

But since you ask *me*, Gforth is the system I use for Forth
programming, as it has the best usability of all Forth systems I know
(at least for the things I do and for the way I work).  In addition, I
run programs and little tests on several free Forth systems and on
iForth to check compatibility and measure performance.

- 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



Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:01:30 GMT  
 Starting Forth, Thinking Forth
I just finished reading a copy of Starting Forth (1st ed. I think) that I
was able to get from Amazon for $24.  I now understand why the community
thinks so highly of it.  It is the clearest explanation that I've seen of
Forth.  I now get it.

I've also read half of Thinking Forth at this point as well, and I am
understand the Forth way of thinking a little better.  I think that this
book is almost the equivalent of Structure and Interpretation of Computer
Languages (SICP) found in the Lisp, specifically Scheme, community.

These two works represent a great resource for the Forth world.


Quote:
> Dear Forthers,

> I start reading clf several years ago. From time to time SF and TF are
> introduced to newbies, and then the availability of SF and TF will be
> discussed and so on. Why don't we solve this problem once and for all?

> SF and TF is not the only way to master Forth:
> I never read SF and TF. I get information from you all, either in the form
> of source code, or manual, or just article in the web site. Thanks. I
don't
> believe that SF and TF is the only way to master Forth.

> SF and TF are outdated, but neutral:
> SF and TF are outdated (not ANS Forth or ColorForth), but they are
neutral,
> not SwiftForth, not GForth, not Win32Forth, not VFXForth, not BigForth,
not
> Minos, not iForth, not PFE, not kForth, not hForth, not eForth, not Pygmy,
> not ColorForth, not Ficl, not SmallForth, not F-PC, and you know more.

> SF and TF are important for Forth history:
> SF and TF are both good for the museum, like Turbo Pascal, Turbo C
(Borland
> web site), or HP Calculators (HP museum).

> Suggestion:
> -    create one neutral Forth complete with documentation that are
supported
> by most clf regulars. If you don't like my PET4TH, probably THIS from Wil
> Baden will do, documentation from Julian Noble and Leo Wong, history from
> Forth Inc., and second opinion from Jeff Fox.
> -    if you are author, please improve your documentation, and make it
free,
> probably with Forth trial version
> -    never mention SF and TF again in this clf until they are easily
> bought/download. The words SF and TF are considered flame material in the
> FAQ (people against Forth Inc.)
> -    if someone mentions SF and TF in clf, everybody else flood clf with
> their own Forth and documentation information, so that newbies distracted
> from SF and TF

> I am rather embarassed that we can not replace SF and TF, but arguing over
> them from time to time :-)

> Regards,
> Petrus - PET4TH.



Sat, 20 Aug 2005 11:18:58 GMT  
 
 [ 169 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

 Relevant Pages 

1. FS: Starting and Thinking FORTH

2. FS: "Starting/Thinking FORTH"

3. FS: "Starting Forth", "Thinking Forth", & 8/80 BYTE (Forth Issue)

4. Forth Class, Starting Forth, GUI's...

5. Forth novice needs STARTING FORTH

6. Getting Forth related files (was: Forth primer/teaching Forth)

7. Forth in Forth vs. Forth in assembly language

8. Forth in Forth vs Forth in assembly

9. Forth in Forth vs. Forth in assembly language

10. Book review - Thinking Forth

11. Thinking Forth

12. Thinking Forth available!

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software