Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.UUCP (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Category 2,  Topic 5
Message-ID: <224.UUL1.3#5129@willett.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 90 21:43:45 GMT
Organization: Latest Link in ForthNet Chain
Lines: 33

Message 180       Sun Jan 07, 1990
NMORGENSTERN [Leonard]       at 15:16 EST
 
L.MERRICK writes:

 LM> OK, dumb question of the day time.

 The only dumb questions are those asked by a student who wants to show how
clever he is. (Not sexist: most students who do that are male)

 LM> I've been programming in FORTH for 10+ years in the Z80
 LM> machine (read AT clone) and am 3unable to  wend my way through
 LM> the maze of FORTH's for it.
 LM> 
 LM> I actually USE floating point and I like an editor that I can fully 
 LM> customize.  I'm used to writing code in block format.  What is out there
that 
 LM> doesn't require 200 hours of construction to get running under MS-DOS?

 I always recommend F83 as a starting Forth. F83 is "clean, " well-documented,
and reasonable-sized. It is powerful enough that you may never need another
Forth. You should have little trouble converting from a Z80 machine. Its
disadvantages are that 1) it is limited to 64K; 2) uses the old DOS 1.x calls;
and 3) has a line-oriented editor, so you cannot zip around with the cursor
keys.

 There are several floating point packages that are compatible with F83. I
can't say which is best. Maybe someone else can help you.

 Good luck. If you have questions, post them.
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated program.
Report problems to: 'uunet!willett!dwp' or 'willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu'