Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!snorkelwacker!apple!motcsd!dms!albaugh
From: albaugh@dms.UUCP (Mike Albaugh)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: rewriting history ( was Re: function calls but not really)
Message-ID: <1020@dms.UUCP>
Date: 22 Mar 90 18:06:19 GMT
References: <26086eb6.4cc6@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Organization: Atari Games Inc., Milpitas, CA
Lines: 32

From article <26086eb6.4cc6@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, by jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck):
> In article <5200053@m.cs.uiuc.edu> robison@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>>[...] Can anyone comment on whether
>>FORTH was inspired by the Burroughs stack machines?
> 
> I took a course in Forth from polyForth back in 1981.  We were given a
> dose of the history of Forth and even graced by a visit from Charlie Moore,
> its creator.  The first incarnation of Forth was done on a PDP11 with 4k
> of core memory.

	If Charlie Moore said that, he seems to be re-writing history.
The party line in 1979 or so was that the first implementation was on
an IBM 1130, which preceded the PDP-11 by a bit. Not that it matters
a whole heck of a lot, but repeated factoids become "true" on the net.

	Also, RPN was pretty pervasive by that time, and the English
Electric KDF-9 (previously mentioned on this thread) preceded the
Burroughs machines by a bit too, so the Burroughs-Forth connection
is tenuous at best.

>  I belive the main considerations were 1. compactness of
> code (hence threaded implementation) and 2. simplicity of compilation
> (hence reverse polish notation and stacks).

	_That_ I'll agree with :-)

					Mike

| Mike Albaugh (albaugh@dms.UUCP || {...decwrl!pyramid!}weitek!dms!albaugh)
| Atari Games Corp (Arcade Games, no relation to the makers of the ST)
| 675 Sycamore Dr. Milpitas, CA 95035		voice: (408)434-1709
| The opinions expressed are my own (Boy, are they ever)