"8)
A the memories.
I used Forth heavily in the 80's, mostly being a FigForth person, on Z80
systems.
What you describe is probably the single thing that killed Forth, the
fundamental incompatibilities between versions. Some did simple stack
checks before doing something silly, link the one
On 3/29/21 11:24 AM, Alex ... wrote:
About the editor: I skipped over the whole chapter on the arcane line
editor and page/block-based disk storage since this machine has none
of that. Using TEXT with .DO files works ok, as long as whatever I'm
doing doesn't trample the files in RAM.
Cool, so newbie mistakes and ignorance. As long as my computer's working
properly. :)
What threw me off is in the book, (pg.25) it talks about returning usually
0 and printing STACK EMPTY, which is definitely not how the machine behaved
when trying it.
I don't expect everything to have bounds
This is the default behavior for most all vintage 8-bit Forth implementations.
To do a bounds check might take 6-10 machine cycles for every word. This does
not seem like a lot, but it would have a noticeable impact on performance.
When I ventured Forth a few years ago I found that Forth
