Forth for PDP-11

From: Peter C. Wallace <pcw_at_mesanet.com>
Date: Thu Jun 27 17:14:30 2002

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner wrote:

> It was thus said that the Great Tony Duell once stated:
> >
> > The only language I like more than Forth for _some_ quick hacks is RPL
> > (Reverse Polish Lisp). It's Forth done to excess in that you can push
> > _anything_ onto the stack, not just integers (as in integers, reals,
> > complexes, vectors, matrices, strings, lists (of anything), even
> > _programs_!). Internally, of course, the stack is a stack of pointers to
> > objects in memory.

Postscript is a little like that (a Forth like language that allows pushing a
wide variety of objects on the stack)

Always thought STOIC was more consistant that Forth in its string handling
(strings could be pushed on the stack like PostScript...)



>
> At college I wrote my own Forth-like system (called VIth as Fifth was
> already taken 8-) that was pretty much like this. I even used it in one of
> my classes to implement a Unix shell where Unix commands could be pushed
> onto the stack (let's see, it took about two days to get it extended to be a
> fully programmable Unix shell, which was a *team* project for the class).
>
> The more I study both Forth and Lisp, the more I realize that both are
> quite similar (only that Lisp is a backwards Forth). I like the concepts of
> both but I'm still not satisfied with them (hard to state exactly why
> though).
>
> -spc (That as in my Forth phase ... now I'm in a Lisp phase ... 8-)
>
>

Peter Wallace
Received on Thu Jun 27 2002 - 17:14:30 BST