forth for msx | MSX Resource Center (Page 1/2)

Par Tanni

Hero (556)

11-12-2009, 12:42

Nice that someone still uses Forth!

Par Leo

Paragon (1236)

11-12-2009, 14:08

Nice , thanks for sharing !
I found this forth versus C link , funny to read : http://www.inventio.co.uk/forthvsc.htm

:santa:

Par jltursan

Prophet (2619)

11-12-2009, 18:41

Way cool, thanks!

I own an Hector HRX and I love it's Forth implementation (Forth Pampuk).

A MSX machine with Forth instead the Microsoft BASIC interpreter would have been a cool alternative. We have Kun-BASIC in the Wavy 2+; but it's not the same...

Are there already some tests about its speed against BASIC, C or assembler?

Par RetroTechie

Paragon (1563)

12-12-2009, 00:49

Just out of curiosity: why a cross compiler? A common reason would be compilation speed, right? But AFAIK that's hardly a problem with common Forth implementations. So why not write the compiler to run on the MSX itself?

Btw. does anyone know what Forth implementations already exist, that can run on MSX (either native, or coming from CP/M land) ? Looks like a nice little language with enormous potential. But mostly it requires a different way of looking at problems, and that is what puts most people off, I suppose.

Also check out ColorForth by Forth guru Chuck Moore.

Par Leo

Paragon (1236)

12-12-2009, 11:57

well this implementation produces ROM file, so it guess you can use normal forth and make it a rom
file with this tool ?
but i guess it s a fun project .
i also got hector hrx !!!!

Par samsaga2

Resident (62)

12-12-2009, 12:57

It's a cross compiler because:

- It's a fun project.
- It generates rom files.
- Already exists forth systems for MSX:
* Kuna Forth that is for MSX-DOS (impossible to found)
* CamelForth that is for CP/M (the kernel it's based on CamelForth)
- Little code overhead. It hasn't the usual word header overhead.
- No emacs for MSX ;-)

Just out of curiosity: why a cross compiler? A common reason would be compilation speed, right? But AFAIK that's hardly a problem with common Forth implementations. So why not write the compiler to run on the MSX itself?

Btw. does anyone know what Forth implementations already exist, that can run on MSX (either native, or coming from CP/M land) ? Looks like a nice little language with enormous potential. But mostly it requires a different way of looking at problems, and that is what puts most people off, I suppose.

Also check out ColorForth by Forth guru Chuck Moore.

Par ARTRAG

Enlighted (6976)

12-12-2009, 22:01

so
any example to see how good is forth on msx?

Par jltursan

Prophet (2619)

13-12-2009, 19:04

I've compiled a windows binary of the compiler and uploaded here.

It's very easy to use, basically two steps are needed to compile a forth source (.fs):

1) samc.exe file.fs >file.asm
2) sjasm file.asm file.rom

This project originally uses sjasm assembler; but I suposse that it could be easily adapted to any other assembler out there.

Initially it has a fixed limitation of ROMs no greater than 8KB; but I guess that you can override this changing the file "samforth.end" accordingly.

There're two sample files with the project (test.fs and test2.fs). I've tested them and they work flawlessly.

Nice work! :)

Par Heca

Rookie (21)

14-12-2009, 15:35

What is the size of the kernel when compiled?

Par Heca

Rookie (21)

14-12-2009, 15:43

Woaa, your SYSCALL is freaking huge (slow).
Why didn't you stack all regs (to save/restore) instead ?