On Feb 27, 6:48 am, George Hubert <georgeahub...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> I would suggest Classic Forth (or Traditional Forth) for
> features common to most 16bit ITC Forths (though not more
> modern 32/64 bit STC/Native code optimising Forths). And
> One early Forth (or some early Forths) for features that
> are specific to particular Forths (or Standards) like
> Poly Forth, Fig Forth, Forth 79, Forth 83, F83, F-PC, etc.
> and Standard (or ANS) for features in those Forths (and
> Color Forth, Machine Forth, STOIC, LSE etc.) for features
> of those Forths).
If using to say that is a limitation that has been broken free of in
the meantime, Traditional Forth is very good. If using to say that
something is a very elegant, resource-efficient way of doing things
that was built into many/most Forths, Classic Forth is very good.
If its an implementation assumption built into Forth-83 that Forth-94
relaxes, that is a very convenient comparison
"Unlike Forth-83, ..., since published standards for each are
available.
Unlike Forth-83, which has [attribute A], this new language has
[attribute B], in common with some Forth-94 systems".
or
Unlike Traditional Forth, which has [attribute A], this new language
has [attribute B], in keeping with current Forth practice".
|
