Please, let us know if and when, SwiftX for Windows is released.
Could it be that you decide to release it with no support?
I know that that is the recurring cost of a product for witch there is not a large demand.
HP released the source to some of the calculators, under the NOMAS policy.

Regards

alberto

On 4/28/00 at 6:14 PM SF Talk wrote:

|Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 17:45:25 -0700
|From: Elizabeth D Rather <erather_at_forth.com>
|Subject: Re: Swiftforth Metacompiler?
|
|We have an unreleased version of SwiftX (our cross-compiler) which builds
|small executables or dlls for Windows. It is not easy to do! It doen't
|just remove headers, it specifically builds the target to your
|specifications, with exactly those functions you wish to include.
|
|We have not decided whether to release it or not, as we aren't sure how big
|the demand is, but we have used it in quite a few in-house projects.
|
|Cheers,
|Elizabeth
|
|

.

>From howay_at_netease.com Wed Apr 5 13:11:40 2000
To: sftalk_at_forth.com
Message-Id: <m0000845_at_gerd.forthinc.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:11:40 +0800
From: "Howard Wayne" <howay_at_netease.com>
Subject: Forth VS Java ?

Hi all:
    I am a newbie of Forth. I have a simple question, can Forth run faster
than Java? And if Forth is better than Java, why people who use Java are
much more than those who use Forth?

Welcome any answer.
Thanks you all in advance.

Howard Wayne

.

>From howay_at_netease.com Wed Apr 5 13:11:40 2000
To: sftalk_at_forth.com
Message-Id: <m0000846_at_gerd.forthinc.com>
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 04:31:13 -0600
From: "Glenn Dixon" <DIXONG_at_iomega.com>
Subject: Re: [sftalk] Forth VS Java ?

My two cents:

The run speeds of Forth and Java will depend a lot on the implementations of both, but if one examines the JVM (Java Virtual Machine) spec, one is impressed with how Forth-like it is. Most instructions map one-one (Java's POP2 = Forth's 2DROP, for example), except that the Java instructions are aware of the types of entities on the Java data stack (something that can be added to the forth compiler). The JVM spec does not mention a return stack, but one would have to implement a return stack to get any runtime efficiency. I'm pretty sure that at least some of the Java developers had a Forth background and used it in developing the JVM.

My guess is that Swiftforth will always compare favorably to any Java implementation in terms of run times because of its implementation efficiency.

Just as I'm convinced that Forth had an influence on the JVM, I'm convinced that a deliberate effort was made to conceal the connection. In certain circles (especially conventional software development circles), Forth has a stigma attached to it, if it is known at all. Java would probably not be as popular today had it been touted as "based on Forth principles".

But Java has left out an important feature. You must compile it (like C) to use it: it has no interactive mode. Whether you consider Forth or Java the better language depends a lot on how much you value this feature. As a hardware engineer who writes software as part of hardware development, this feature is essential to me. Several times I have used C, Java and other languages and have been grateful to come back to Forth, which is better suited to the things I do. That fact that the Forth compiler can be understood and enhanced is a big plus as well.

The lack of an interactive Java has spawned such things as Javascript (which is not Java at all), and some efforts at making a true interactive Java.
I'm not aware of any completed interactive Java implemenatations, but a work-in-progress can be found at
http://members.aol.com/ppaatt/
This site also has a link to the JVM spec.

Hope this helps. Almost without exception, I've found that Forth detractors have not used the language.

Regards,
Glenn Dixon

>>> SF Talk <sftalk_at_forth.com> 05/05/00 11:44PM >>>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:11:40 +0800
From: "Howard Wayne" <howay_at_netease.com>
Subject: Forth VS Java ?

Hi all:
    I am a newbie of Forth. I have a simple question, can Forth run faster
than Java? And if Forth is better than Java, why people who use Java are
much more than those who use Forth?

Welcome any answer.
Thanks you all in advance.

Howard Wayne

.

>From howay_at_netease.com Wed Apr 5 13:11:40 2000
To: sftalk_at_forth.com
Message-Id: <m0000848_at_gerd.forthinc.com>
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 21:39:55 +0800
From: "Howard Wayne" <howay_at_netease.com>
Subject: Re: [sftalk] Forth VS Java ?

Mr. Glenn Dixon:
    Thank you for your help. Now I know exactly the difference between Forth
and Java . If there is a compiler, it compiles C++ source code to Forth, can
it be popular ? I am a C++ programmer before, I don't like Java because of
it's slow speed. So if there is a compiler like the one I mentioned just
now, I will use it instead of Java.

Thanks again

Howard Wayne

----- Original Message -----
From: "SF Talk" <sftalk_at_forth.com>
To: "SF Talk" <sftalk_at_forth.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [sftalk] Forth VS Java ?

Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 04:31:13 -0600
From: "Glenn Dixon" <DIXONG_at_iomega.com>
Subject: Re: [sftalk] Forth VS Java ?

My two cents:

The run speeds of Forth and Java will depend a lot on the implementations of
both, but if one examines the JVM (Java Virtual Machine) spec, one is
impressed with how Forth-like it is. Most instructions map one-one (Java's
POP2 = Forth's 2DROP, for example), except that the Java instructions are
aware of the types of entities on the Java data stack (something that can be
added to the forth compiler). The JVM spec does not mention a return stack,
but one would have to implement a return stack to get any runtime
efficiency. I'm pretty sure that at least some of the Java developers had a
Forth background and used it in developing the JVM.

My guess is that Swiftforth will always compare favorably to any Java
implementation in terms of run times because of its implementation
efficiency.

Just as I'm convinced that Forth had an influence on the JVM, I'm convinced
that a deliberate effort was made to conceal the connection. In certain
circles (especially conventional software development circles), Forth has a
stigma attached to it, if it is known at all. Java would probably not be as
popular today had it been touted as "based on Forth principles".

But Java has left out an important feature. You must compile it (like C) to
use it: it has no interactive mode. Whether you consider Forth or Java the
better language depends a lot on how much you value this feature. As a
hardware engineer who writes software as part of hardware development, this
feature is essential to me. Several times I have used C, Java and other
languages and have been grateful to come back to Forth, which is better
suited to the things I do. That fact that the Forth compiler can be
understood and enhanced is a big plus as well.

The lack of an interactive Java has spawned such things as Javascript (which
is not Java at all), and some efforts at making a true interactive Java.
I'm not aware of any completed interactive Java implemenatations, but a
work-in-progress can be found at
http://members.aol.com/ppaatt/
This site also has a link to the JVM spec.

Hope this helps. Almost without exception, I've found that Forth detractors
have not used the language.

Regards,
Glenn Dixon

>>> SF Talk <sftalk_at_forth.com> 05/05/00 11:44PM >>>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:11:40 +0800
From: "Howard Wayne" <howay_at_netease.com>
Subject: Forth VS Java ?

Hi all:
    I am a newbie of Forth. I have a simple question, can Forth run faster
than Java? And if Forth is better than Java, why people who use Java are
much more than those who use Forth?

Welcome any answer.
Thanks you all in advance.

Howard Wayne

.
Received on Fri Apr 28 2000 - 20:41:21 PDT