Home
Main website
Display Sidebar
Hide Ads
Recent Changes
View Source:
Forth
Edit
PageHistory
Diff
Info
LikePages
You are viewing an old revision of this page.
View the current version
.
!!! <tt>YOU FORTH LOVE IF HONK THEN</tt> [Forth] is a ProgrammingLanguage developed by ChuckMoore in the 1960s (see the [history of Forth | http://www.forth.com/Content/History/History1.htm]). Forth is a [Stack] based language with a ReversePolish syntax. A function call is very fast as the arguments are those on the [Stack] when the program enters and the return value is left on the [Stack] when it exits. A Forth program consists of many small functions, with just the essentials written in AssemblyLanguage. [Forth] is used in embedded systems. It produces very compact code. A whole [Forth] interpreter and development system will fit into 8 kilobytes, easily, and leave plenty of room for code. Back when the computer with 8 kilobytes of [RAM] that you were to write programs for was ''also'' the the computer you had to write programs ''on'' [Forth] was very popular. !!! Implementations [DragonForth | http://dragonforth.sf.net]: [Free] [Forth] compiler for PalmPilot [Quartus | http://www.quartus.net/products/forth/]: A [Forth] compiler for the PalmPilot [GForth | http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/gforth.html]: [GNU]'s Forth. It's unusual for a [Forth] in that it comes with a manual. [Forth] programmers aren't big on manuals <tt>:-(</tt> [PFE | http://pfe.sourceforge.net]: It has a VirtualMachine and kernel (see below) written in [C]. It might be a good one to study. [RetroForth | http://retro.tunes.org]: Both a ForthOS and a [Forth] for [Linux] systems. [bigFORTH | http://bigforth.sf.net/]: A native code compiler for [x86] which includes a [GUI] library and form editor. [Forth] is also the basis for the [RPL] language used in HewlettPackard calculators and OpenFirmware. !!! [Forth] Machines Sentences long extremely and notation Polish reverse in writing about wrong is what? <br>— Jarkko Hietaniemi ''This is a general description of how [Forth] works. It's __different__. If you like [Brainf*ck] you will like [Forth].'' [Forth] functions are called ''words''. which are organised in the ''user dictionary''. A [Forth] machine has two stacks. When subroutines (called ''words'' in [Forth] lingo) are called they pop arguments off the ''parameter stack'' and push back return values. The ''return stack'' holds the return addresses of word calls. Finally, the input buffer for the [Forth] parser forms an integral part of a [Forth] system. [Forth] programs are written in ReversePolish notation. [Forth] words access the ''parameter stack'' directly to fetch arguments and leave return values. The stack is also used for temporary storage, as traditionally there are no local variables in [Forth]. There are words for flipping around values on the top of the stacks to help you with this. As you program in [Forth] you must keep careful track of what is supposed to be on the stack at every point, though this is much easier than it first seems (beginners tend to make this more complicated than necessary, thus giving Forth a bad reputation as a "write-only" language). This is all part of ChuckMoore's philosophy of brutal simplicity in software engineering. The ''dictionary'' is structured also like a stack; there is a ''here'' pointer, where everything behind it is considered ''allocated'' and part of the runtime system, and everything in front is considered temporary storage at best. As words are defined, ''here'' is advanced. When you wish to recycle memory, you ''forget'' a word (usually by executing a word defined by '''MARKER'''; see the ANSI Forth specification for details), which resets ''here'' to that word's definition point. Some Forth's permit multiple vocabularies to exist concurrently, analogous to C++ namespaces. The first vocabulary is a tiny kernel of word definitions written in MachineCode, then there is a standard library vocabulary defined in [Forth], and then optional vocabularies that define a simple text editor, assembler and disk OperatingSystem. (A modern [Forth] system might have a [TCP/IP] stack on there somewhere too.) There is no syntax in [Forth], just words for manipulating other words, the input buffer and the user dictionary. The word <tt>:</tt> tells [Forth] to begin compiling the subsequent words found on the input buffer. Some words have flags that tell [Forth] to execute them immediately while compiling: these create control structures in the word. Ordinary words may be compiled into <tt>call</tt> statements, or they may be expanded to native machine language instructions. Words that look like integers may be compiled into the equivalent of <tt>push</tt> statements, or may be embedded into immediate operands of machine instructions. Note that the definition is ''usually'' built piece-meal in the dictionary, so that when <tt>;</tt> is executed, the definition is already finished. Highly optimizing compilers, however, will wait to put anything at all in the dictionary until <tt>;</tt> is encountered, where <tt>;</tt> pushes the new defintion onto the dictionary after proper lexical and parsed analysis. To help generate efficient code, some highly optimizing compilers will even ''infer types'' based on words you call in the definition! You use <tt>:</tt> to add new words to the [Forth] system until you've created a high-level [Forth] vocabulary that you can easily express your problem in. You just keep going until you've defined a single word that, when called, executes your entire program. [Forth] is very much a BottomUp language. :-) However, this is absolutely no different from programming in any other language; in C, all programs ''ultimately'' function from a single <tt>main()</tt> function. Likewise, in Haskell as well. MachineCode statements can be used as [Forth] ByteCode~s so the machine can execute them directly. One form of this is called ''subroutine threading''. It is one of a number of approaches to reduce the overhead of interpretation (which spends a lot of time executing call statements). Real [Forth] geeks write their own [Forth] kernels from the metal up. (I wrote my own, on paper, when I was 14. (I don't think I can do that anymore.) I was working from a [Forth] book and a Z80 opcode table; I didn't have a computer. I still have pieces of it. God knows if it would have worked.) ChuckMoore creates his own [Forth] machines from silicon. It's not ''very'' hard once you've absorbed the [Forth] philosophy. There is shockingly little holding [Forth] up. !!! Examples This right here is a lovely example of [Forth]: LifeInForth. This more sober example comes from the IRC bot (in [ISForth | http://isforth.clss.net/]): <verbatim> \ receive up to 512 bytes from bot socket : bot-read off> #inbuff inbuff \ where to receive into begin 1 over bot-fd recv \ read one char from bot socket 1- \ result should be 0 now if \ if its not then we didnt get any input drop exit \ so discard buffer address and exit then incr> #inbuff \ we got a character dup c@ \ get the character we just read $0a <> \ while its not an eol #inbuff 512 <> and while 1+ \ advance buffer address repeat drop \ discard buffer address ; </verbatim> Notice the style of code is predominantly vertical, leading to a program structure that is intrinsically very hard to read. The while loop's condition check, for example, consists of the overwhelming bulk of the code. This, generally, is considered very poor programming style in Forth. Yet another example, a simple text editor (from [Retro Native Forth | http://retro.tunes.org]), is much easier to read, and demonstrates the preferred programming method that is more horizontal. Just as words in a college dictionary are written in only a few lines, and are predominantly horizontal, so too is the code below. Another way of thinking about this is in terms of functional programming, where most definitions are, despite being defined at the global scope, really private to the main word: <verbatim> 0 variable lastBlock asmbase $1024 + constant blockBase : block 512 * blockBase + ; : select dup lastBlock ! ; : vl dup 40 type cr 40 + ; : view lastBlock @ block vl vl vl vl vl vl vl vl vl vl vl vl ; : edit select block s drop drop view ; : delete select block 512 0 fill view ; : edit-line 40 * lastBlock @ block + s drop drop view ; : delete-line 40 * lastBlock @ block + 37 0 fill view ; </verbatim> For example, the definition of "block" can be likened to the more traditional functional style: <verbatim> let block b = blockBase + (512*b) </verbatim> In fact, there are many similarities and dualities between Forth and functional programming languages. * Haskell compiles software to a tree of ''closures,'' basically packets of code and data that, taken together, form a ''function'' in the mathematical sense. In Forth, because parameters are placed on the stack, there is no need to store free-variables or bound-variables in the program structure. Hence, a poiner to a closure consists ''only'' of its code pointer; therefore, typical Forth "threaded" code maps 1:1 to Haskell's closure-based execution environment. (The fact that [bigFORTH | http://bigforth.sf.net/] and [GHC Haskell Compiler | http://www.haskell.org] produce binaries that are about equally performant is no coincidence.) * Forth has issues using local variables, but can maintain global state with ease. Haskell has issues using global state, but can maintain local variables with ease. To address these issues, ANSI Forth introduces a portable locals wordset, while Haskell introduced monads to deal with global state. Both constructs are fully expressable in the core language, and both address (essentially) different sides of the same problem. * Forth allows the compiler to be extended by fundamentally altering the compiler in terms of words written in the base language itself. Haskell utilizes monads for this same purpose. * Haskell uses the <tt>>>=</tt> operator to compose the ''right-hand's'' monadic function onto the results returned by the ''left-hand'' computation. This is, save for the threading of state, ''normal function composition.'' In Forth, which is described mathematically as a purely combinator-based language, composition is performed by concatenation -- e.g., simply listing one word after another. Hence, both Forth and Haskell code can be expressed via function composition, and therefore, reasoned about algebraically. * Forth allows one to freely alter the return stack. Return stack items are (usually) return addresses, and therefore, (partial) continuations. Freely altering the return stack is dangerous and can produce unstable software. However, there are nonetheless distinct *patterns* of return stack manipulations you can use to produce _extremely_ compact representations of fairly high-level control flow structures. This introduces the concept of "return conventions," as distinct from "calling conventions." It turns out that Haskell uses return conventions as well, under the hood, to optimize pattern-matching in case and function evaluation. As you can see, Forth shares many traits with functional languages, and therefore doesn't always apply to the AssemblyLanguage programmer. In fact, besides embedded devices, ''music'' is one of Forth's application domains, as it is used in some of UCSD's music courses. Forth has successfully been used in artificial intelligence research, and is the language of choice for NASA on many satellites and planetary probes. In these environments, the functional correctness and compactness of Forth weighs more heavily than the use of assembly language. ----- [Forth humour at UserFriendly|http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070213&mode=classic] ----- CategoryProgrammingLanguages, CategoryMachineOrientedProgrammingLanguages, CategorySystemsProgrammingLanguages
10 pages link to
Forth
:
CastingPointerToFunction
Acorn
Stack
KnowYourSysadmin
ChuckMoore
LifeInForth
ReversePolish
CarlWyles
PostScript
OpenFirmware