Victor__v писал(а):
HughAguilar писал(а):
Ethereal писал(а):
KROL, you have to complete your buggy MS-DOS Forth first and to dream Forth OS about second. Если первое пока не по зубам, не по зубам и второе.
This apparently is a Russian proverb. Google Translate turns it into nonsense. I don't know what your meaning is!

roughly,
Couldn't do first item, couldn't will second item
I understand: KROL attempted to write a Forth OS on top of the BIOS but didn't complete this. Now he wants to write a Forth shell on top of Linux and you guys doubt that he will succeed at this either.
Well, I don't know the history of what KROL has or hasn't done, so I have no opinion on this.
Writing a Forth shell for Linux should be easier than writing a Forth OS on top of the BIOS --- I hope that KROL succeeds at this!
I'm dubious that many people will be interested --- we already have the BASH shell that is very popular --- I'm not aware of anybody saying that BASH is inadequate and needs to be replaced.
My goal is a Forth language standard for 64-bit computers that supports cross-compilation of Forth targeting micro-controllers.
I did write the MFX cross-compiler for the MiniForth processor when I was employed at Testra, and MFX continues to be used today. So I do have some success at cross-compilation, and I know what is required to support cross-compilation.
I think that designing a Forth standard that supports cross-compilation is pretty easy --- I want to get a consensus though --- I don't want to impose my own ideas on everybody by fiat.
The purpose of a standard is that there can be multiple implementations that are compatible, so programs can be ported between implementations easily.
To have multiple implementations it is necessary to have multiple people in agreement --- not just me agreeing with myself.
