Re: part 21 asserts forth best for small memory systems, would lisp

Duke Normandin <dukeofperl@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> >
> > Forth has greater advantages when it's not tied to a lumbering beast
> > of an operating system.  This is when Forth really sings.  Also,
> > Forth's *margin of advantage* in embedded control projects is
> > greater than when it's just another language running a desktop
> > program on a general-purpose computer.
> >
> > [snip]
> > Andrew.
> 
> If Forth had succeeded instead of MSDOS/Windows and maybe even Unices,
> what would the personal computer environment look like today? Do you
> think that Forth could have brought us to what we enjoy and take for
> granted today? Maybe it just the nature of the beast - allowing it to
> excel in small, finite projects? Maybe there are just too many Forths
> - each one capable of doing an excellent job in Forth's niche, however
> incompatible with each other?
> 
> Regardless, I'd sure like to see a stand-alone Forth system is all its
> glory -- so that I could compare it to my OSX and Ubuntu boxes.

Here's one;

http://www.forthos.org/
This is like eforth, loaded with GRUB. All in assembler, no C. No
applications beyond an assembler and editor. 

Another:

http://www.colorforth.com/
This is like nothing else. The version at this site appears to be an old
one, you might want to do a search for an updated system.

And there are others. It's a big deal that most of the applications
you're used to won't be on a Forth OS until somebody writes them in
Forth or assembler or a combination. And if you write them in Forth or
assembler or a combination for one ForthOS they won't run on any other
ForthOS without a lot of modification.