Linked by Conrad Voorsanger on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 16:28 UTC
Original OSNews Interviews OSNews sat down with Ian Seyler, the Founder and Lead Programmer at Return Infinity, the maker and sponsor of Baremetal OS, a 64-bit OS for x86-64 based computers written entirely in Assembly. Editor's note: We'd love to do similar interviews with the people behind other alternative or hobby OS projects. If there's a project that you'd like to learn more about, let us know.
Thread beginning with comment 475935
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why not in Forth?
by Zbigniew on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 20:27 UTC
Zbigniew
Member since:
2008-08-28

Being written in Forth, it could be more easily portable.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why not in Forth?
by Alfman on Fri 3rd Jun 2011 23:55 in reply to "Why not in Forth?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

You know there are so many languages these days, it's become difficult to keep track of them.

For example, I already have trouble remembering the substring functions between javascript, c, php, perl, .net, mysql, plsql... very rarely do I use others.

What does forth offer as a compelling reason to learn/use it?

It may be good, but these days languages have way too much overlap and the choice is seemingly arbitrary.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Why not in Forth?
by Zbigniew on Sat 4th Jun 2011 11:52 in reply to "RE: Why not in Forth?"
Zbigniew Member since:
2008-08-28

> What does forth offer as a compelling reason to learn/use it?

You didn't read anything like "Starting Forth"? OK, here you go:

Forth is fast. High-level Forth executes as fast as other high-level languages and between 20 to 75% slower than equivalent assembly-language programs, while time-critical code may be written in assembler to run at full processor speed. Without a traditional operating system, Forth eliminates redundancy and needless run-time error checking.

Forth compiled code is compact. Forth applications require less memory than their equivalent assembly-language programs and consume less power (important for hand-helds and portable gadgets!) Written in Forth, the entire operating system and its standard word set reside in less than 8K bytes. Support for a target application may require less than 1K bytes.

Forth is transportable. It has been implemented on just about every mini- and microcomputer known to the industry. Most microcontrollers and DSPs, even tiny ones, also have a Forth implementation.

Forth has been known to cut program development time by a factor of ten for equivalent assembly-language programming and by a factor of two for equivalent high-level programming in C or Java. Productivity increases because Forth epitomizes "structured programming" and because it is interactive and modular.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Why not in Forth?
by charles on Sat 4th Jun 2011 16:01 in reply to "Why not in Forth?"
charles Member since:
2005-06-30

Can you point to any examples of an easily portable OS or kernel written in Forth? Or a Forth suitable for writing an OS kernel for x86/x86-64 hardware?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Why not in Forth?
by Zbigniew on Sat 4th Jun 2011 17:45 in reply to "RE: Why not in Forth?"
Zbigniew Member since:
2008-08-28

If you mean something "bigger" - try ForthOS ( http://www.forthos.org/ ). The "smaller things" - e.g. for microcontrollers - are obvious (CamelForth, cforth etc.), since Forth "likes to be an OS".

The biggest sense in using Forth is using it "standalone" - I mean: with NO control of any underlying "external" OS.

Oh, I forgot: http://www.openfirmware.info/Open_Firmware - here you are: "easily portable OS or kernel written in Forth; Forth suitable for writing an OS kernel for x86/x86-64 hardware" - everything you requested in just one software package.

Edited 2011-06-04 17:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1