Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!apple!amdahl!pacbell!sactoh0!tree!stever
From: stever@tree.uucp (Steve Rudek)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: porting an MS-DOS Forth to a 386 Unix/Xenix
Keywords: MS-DOS, Forth, porting, source, help
Message-ID: <1989Nov20.211822.1015@tree.uucp>
Date: 20 Nov 89 21:18:22 GMT
Organization: TREE BBS (916)349-0385 Sacramento, Ca
Lines: 71

Several weeks ago I made a posting asking for guidance in getting a
high-quality Forth to run on a 386 Xenix/Unix.  My message was almost 
totally ignored.  I suppose I could just let my imagination manufacture
reasons as to why I was ignored, but that doesn't seem a very productive
thing to do.  So, I've decided to make a followup posting -- I think it is
*important* to get a high quality Forth running in a 386 Unix environment;
whether you work with and like the Intel 80386 processor or not, it is
my understanding the the current boom in Unix acceptance owes at least as 
much to the availability of cheap 386 machines as it does to any other
single factor.  I think it would further both Unix and Forth to have a serious
alternative to 'C' on 386 Unix machines *specifically*.  I admit that a 
Forth on 386 Unix would benefit me personally, of course -- 386 Unix is 
where I expect to spend the next 5 to 10 years and I guess I'm about the
only programmer in the world who (*blush*) thinks 'C' is overused and
overrated.

My original posting asked how to approach porting an 8088 Forth from MS-DOS
to Unix/Xenix.  It would be better, of course, to get a Forth written
specifically for a 386 processor, but I figured that could be dealt with
later if the ported Forth included a metacompiler and/or full source.  And
there are a number of fairly robust, public-domain Forth's available for the
8088 architecture which should be able to run under Unix/Xenix once the
system calls and binary-header are changed.  I also acknowledged that I
don't know squat about implementing/porting Forth although for some perverse
reason I am strongly attracted to the language.

I said all that and I got . . . silence.  Doesn't anyone knowledgeable who
reads this group share my interest in getting F83 or F-PC or some other
good Forth to run on a 386 Unix??  Did my message fail to get widely
distributed to the net?  Did I say something so "silly" or boring in my
posting that everyone immediately pressed "n"?  Maybe none of the serious Forth
people who follow this group work on 386 Unix machines?  I suppose you might
be divided between those who read usenet but only work on MS-DOS and those
who do use Unix but have high end Sun workstations and VAX minicomputers??

I've exchanged email with a couple of people who have Unix based Forths
written in C and perhaps something will come from one of those leads.  But
I'm concerned that the Forth I use not be a second-rate citizen under Unix;
it will need to support system calls and curses, at a minimum, and it *must*
be f-a-s-t enough so developed applications can compete seriously with
programs coded in C. That doesn't mean the Forth programs have to be as fast
as equivalent C programs, but they've got to be close--not an order of
magnitude slower.  Doesn't that almost necessitate assembly language support
for new primatives?

In a recent posting, sabbagh@csd27.nyu.edu (Hadil G. Sabbagh) said:
>To add to the "Forth written in C debate" I wish to point out that,
>in UNIX, it is not _possible_ to write Forth (in either C _or_
>assembler !!!) that can allow the user to write definitions in the
>native machine language (ie.e., assembler).  THis is because the
>the "text space" (the segment of memory that holds the executable
>code image) is defined to be _read-only_.  There may be a way
>around this if you achieved a sufficiently high level of UNIX wizardry
>and have the right priviledges :-).

Is he correct?  That would be terrible.  Some other quick questions before I
end this posting: (1) I just received the FIG catalog. They don't have a 386
Forth advertised but they do have F-PC available.  I've never seen it and
I'm wondering if *complete* assembly source is available and if it might be
a better choice for porting to Unix than is F83?  (2) I've failed in all
attempts to correspond with either the author of the Forth 'compiler'
(CFORTH) or the maintainer of the Forth archive (I wanted to get the source
listing of the minimal Forth kernel and the article describing the different
mechanisms for Forth threading).  I guess that is the problem with crossing
over from uucp (what I have access to) and internet?  Isn't there any
reliable gateway for handling that transition through which I could mail
my letters?

Thanks for your attention.
-- 
{pacbell!sactoh0! OR ucdavis!csusac!}tree!stever