I’m selling a lot of Forth books on ebay if anyone’s interested. Non-smoking home. Titles include:

The Complete Forth by Alan Winfield
Threaded Interpretive Languages by R. G. Loeliger
Mastering Forth by Martin Tracy et al.
Starting Forth (Second Edition) by Leo Brodie
Forth: The New Model by Jack Woehr (includes 5 1/4" floppy disk)
Beginning Forth by Paul Chirlian (some scotch tape on the back cover) Thinking Forth by Leo Brodie (two copies)
Starting Forth (blue cover) by Leo Brodie
Forth Fundamentals by C. Kevin McCabe

https://www.ebay.com/itm/255658542842

> I’m selling a lot of Forth books on ebay if anyone’s interested.
Not sure, if it's possible to buy two of them: I would be keen to get
„Beginning Forth” and „Forth: The New Model”. If so — drop me a
line, please, on my e-mail.

To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthy
position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for
Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.

On Wednesday, 10 August 2022 at 19:31:46 UTC+1, Zbig wrote:
> > I’m selling a lot of Forth books on ebay if anyone’s interested.
> Not sure, if it's possible to buy two of them: I would be keen to get
> „Beginning Forth” and „Forth: The New Model”. If so — drop me a
> line, please, on my e-mail.
>
> To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthy
> position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
> than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for
> Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.

The current eBook version on amazon is as agreed with Forth INC. Thanks.

On 11/08/2022 04:31, Zbig wrote:
>
> To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthy
> position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
> than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for
> Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.

In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text
assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed? While
the later edition may be more useful, it's possible FI doesn't own the
updated material. What does it say on the copyright page?

On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:04:25 PM UTC-7, dxforth wrote:
> On 11/08/2022 04:31, Zbig wrote:
> >
> > To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthy
> > position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
> > than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for
> > Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.
> In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text
> assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed? While
> the later edition may be more useful, it's possible FI doesn't own the
> updated material. What does it say on the copyright page?

Sorry, not exactly sure what you're looking for.

On 11/08/2022 14:49, Jeff Bernstein wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 10, 2022 at 8:04:25 PM UTC-7, dxforth wrote:
>> On 11/08/2022 04:31, Zbig wrote:
>>>
>>> To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthy
>>> position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
>>> than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for
>>> Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.
>> In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text
>> assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed? While
>> the later edition may be more useful, it's possible FI doesn't own the
>> updated material. What does it say on the copyright page?
>
> Sorry, not exactly sure what you're looking for.

It was a reply to the off-topic question as to why Forth Inc hadn't
made the 2nd edition of Starting Forth available as an electronic
d/load. I don't know but suggested they may not have been entitled.

On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 04:04:25 UTC+1, dxforth wrote:
> On 11/08/2022 04:31, Zbig wrote:
> >
> > To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthy
> > position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
> > than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for
> > Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.
> In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text
> assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed? While
> the later edition may be more useful, it's possible FI doesn't own the
> updated material. What does it say on the copyright page?

Forth INC owns the copyright of Starting Forth.
Otherwise they could not have a full version on their website.
Otherwise they could not have gven me the OK to publish as eBook.

On 11/08/2022 16:18, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 04:04:25 UTC+1, dxforth wrote:
>> On 11/08/2022 04:31, Zbig wrote:
>>>
>>> To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthy
>>> position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
>>> than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for
>>> Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.
>> In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text
>> assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed? While
>> the later edition may be more useful, it's possible FI doesn't own the
>> updated material. What does it say on the copyright page?
>
> Forth INC owns the copyright of Starting Forth.
> Otherwise they could not have a full version on their website.
> Otherwise they could not have gven me the OK to publish as eBook.

They gave you the rights to publish the 1st edition which was written
at a time Brodie was still an employee.

On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 09:23:01 UTC+1, dxforth wrote:
> On 11/08/2022 16:18, Jurgen Pitaske wrote:
> > On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 04:04:25 UTC+1, dxforth wrote:
> >> On 11/08/2022 04:31, Zbig wrote:
> >>>
> >>> To Mr. Pintaske: that second edition of „Starting Forth” could be worthy
> >>> position of your „Forth shelf”. It's more „universal” for beginner readers
> >>> than first edition, being completed with comments and examples for
> >>> Forth-83 and fig-Forth. The first edition was, if I'm correct, poly-Forth-oriented.
> >> In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text
> >> assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed? While
> >> the later edition may be more useful, it's possible FI doesn't own the
> >> updated material. What does it say on the copyright page?
> >
> > Forth INC owns the copyright of Starting Forth.
> > Otherwise they could not have a full version on their website.
> > Otherwise they could not have gven me the OK to publish as eBook.
> They gave you the rights to publish the 1st edition which was written
> at a time Brodie was still an employee.

I published what I was allowed to by Forth INC.and I am quite happy about it
- better than what was there as eBook before.
And a great part of my Forth Bookshelf publications
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Juergen-Pintaske/e/B00N8HVEZM

> What does it say on the copyright page?

The second edition is copyrighted by Prentice-Hall, Inc.
„Forth Inc.” is mentioned just as co-author(?).

On 11/08/2022 22:10, Zbig wrote:
>> What does it say on the copyright page?
>
> The second edition is copyrighted by Prentice-Hall, Inc.
> „Forth Inc.” is mentioned just as co-author(?).

Perhaps Prentice-Hall wasn't interested unless it held the
copyright for the 2nd ed. and FI / LB agreed.

FWIW Thinking FORTH (also Prentice-Hall) says:

(c) 1984 by Leo Brodie

> In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text
> assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed?

No, the second edition shows examples (and words) prepared for Forth 83,
with footnotes explaining how to modify them for fig-Forth and „older systems”
(poly-Forth?).

On 11/08/2022 23:45, Zbig wrote:
>> In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text
>> assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed?
>
> No, the second edition shows examples (and words) prepared for Forth 83,
> with footnotes explaining how to modify them for fig-Forth and „older systems”
> (poly-Forth?).

Forth-83 is quite sparse cf. polyForth. So 2nd ed. no longer has M+ M/ M* M*/ etc. ?
That would make it about as exciting as reading a Forth Standard. 99.99% of 1st ed.
readers couldn't afford polyForth. That made the book all the more wondrous - akin
to possessing a book of spells but lacking the key :)

> >> In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text
> >> assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed?
> >
> > No, the second edition shows examples (and words) prepared for Forth 83,
> > with footnotes explaining how to modify them for fig-Forth and „older systems”
> > (poly-Forth?).
> Forth-83 is quite sparse cf. polyForth. So 2nd ed. no longer has M+ M/ M* M*/ etc. ?

They are listed (page 158).

On 12/08/2022 00:39, Zbig wrote:
>>>> In the 1st ed all the function details and stack comments in the main text
>>>> assumed poly-forth. I assume that remained intact in the 2nd ed?
>>>
>>> No, the second edition shows examples (and words) prepared for Forth 83,
>>> with footnotes explaining how to modify them for fig-Forth and „older systems”
>>> (poly-Forth?).
>> Forth-83 is quite sparse cf. polyForth. So 2nd ed. no longer has M+ M/ M* M*/ etc. ?
>
> They are listed (page 158).

Hopefully they're listed as not Forth-83.

Is MOD signed?

> > They are listed (page 158).
> Hopefully they're listed as not Forth-83.

There isn't in every single case a remark which standard is presented;
they are listed just as „mixed-length operators”.

> Is MOD signed?

No such description. Just a remark: „In the Forth-83 standard, in all
of Forth's division operators, the quotient is floored”.

Brodie wrote in „Preface to the second edition”:
„[..] Since the first edition was published, the Forth-83 standard has been
ratified and widely adopted. Upgrading the syntax of this book to that of
83 standard was the primary reason for undertaking this revision. [..]
there are still a lot of fig-Forth (Forth Interest Group) systems out there..
In this edition, I've added footnotes that flag the major differences for
those users [..]”

On 12/08/2022 20:57, Zbig wrote:
>>> They are listed (page 158).
>> Hopefully they're listed as not Forth-83.
>
> There isn't in every single case a remark which standard is presented;
> they are listed just as „mixed-length operators”.
>
>> Is MOD signed?
>
> No such description. Just a remark: „In the Forth-83 standard, in all
> of Forth's division operators, the quotient is floored”.

The stack comment should say. In the 1st edition:

MOD (u1 u2 -- u-rem)

*/MOD (u1 u2 u3 -- u-rem u-result)

> Brodie wrote in „Preface to the second edition”:
> „[..] Since the first edition was published, the Forth-83 standard has been
> ratified and widely adopted. Upgrading the syntax of this book to that of
> 83 standard was the primary reason for undertaking this revision. [..]
> there are still a lot of fig-Forth (Forth Interest Group) systems out there.
> In this edition, I've added footnotes that flag the major differences for
> those users [..]”

An unenviable task. Wonder how many conversion errors/omissions :)

> The stack comment should say. In the 1st edition:
>
> MOD (u1 u2 -- u-rem)
>
> */MOD (u1 u2 u3 -- u-rem u-result)

It's changed to n-rem.

> > Brodie wrote in „Preface to the second edition”:
> > „[..] Since the first edition was published, the Forth-83 standard has been
> > ratified and widely adopted. Upgrading the syntax of this book to that of
> > 83 standard was the primary reason for undertaking this revision. [..]
> > there are still a lot of fig-Forth (Forth Interest Group) systems out there.
> > In this edition, I've added footnotes that flag the major differences for
> > those users [..]”
> An unenviable task. Wonder how many conversion errors/omissions :)

Jeff Bernstein offers the book — so it's an opportunity to count these errors. ;)

On 13/08/2022 23:53, Zbig wrote:
>> The stack comment should say. In the 1st edition:
>>
>> MOD (u1 u2 -- u-rem)
>>
>> */MOD (u1 u2 u3 -- u-rem u-result)
>
> It's changed to n-rem.
>
>>> Brodie wrote in „Preface to the second edition”:
>>> „[..] Since the first edition was published, the Forth-83 standard has been
>>> ratified and widely adopted. Upgrading the syntax of this book to that of
>>> 83 standard was the primary reason for undertaking this revision. [..]
>>> there are still a lot of fig-Forth (Forth Interest Group) systems out there.
>>> In this edition, I've added footnotes that flag the major differences for
>>> those users [..]”
>> An unenviable task. Wonder how many conversion errors/omissions :)
>
> Jeff Bernstein offers the book — so it's an opportunity to count these errors. ;)

I recall being shown a 2nd edition at the time but didn't take much notice.
From your description it's a curious oddity as it will always be compared
against classic 1st edition. Today - definitely a collector's item. I'm
guessing it came too late for many copies to have been sold.

> I recall being shown a 2nd edition at the time but didn't take much notice.
> From your description it's a curious oddity as it will always be compared
> against classic 1st edition. Today - definitely a collector's item. I'm
> guessing it came too late for many copies to have been sold.

I think it's indeed improved over the 1st edition in that it uses
a standard (F83) adopted by several implementors, so it's easier for
the beginner reader to find some compiler to get through the book with.
And these remarks for fig-Forth users makes it even easier. Not being
big fan of „standards” however I must note, that probably not that many
readers of 1st edition have had chance of practice using poly-Forth. The
better idea would be to make that 1st edition fig-Forth oriented, but
I understand probably it had its role in promoting commercial product rather.
Apart of that, essentially, it is the same book as the first edition. Well, better
paper, better print etc.

In article <td7ca9$1m7i$1@gioia.aioe.org>, dxforth <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/08/2022 20:57, Zbig wrote:
>>>> They are listed (page 158).
>>> Hopefully they're listed as not Forth-83.
>>
>> There isn't in every single case a remark which standard is presented;
>> they are listed just as „mixed-length operators”.
>>
>>> Is MOD signed?
>>
>> No such description. Just a remark: „In the Forth-83 standard, in all
>> of Forth's division operators, the quotient is floored”.
>
>The stack comment should say. In the 1st edition:
>
>MOD (u1 u2 -- u-rem)
>
>*/MOD (u1 u2 u3 -- u-rem u-result)
>
>> Brodie wrote in „Preface to the second edition”:
>> „[..] Since the first edition was published, the Forth-83 standard has been
>> ratified and widely adopted. Upgrading the syntax of this book to that of
>> 83 standard was the primary reason for undertaking this revision. [..]
>> there are still a lot of fig-Forth (Forth Interest Group) systems out there.
>> In this edition, I've added footnotes that flag the major differences for
>> those users [..]”
>
>An unenviable task. Wonder how many conversion errors/omissions :)

The stack comments are wrong. All numbers are signed.
ISO 93 leaves the decision between floored and symmetric to the
implementor. Symmetric division is a mathematical abomination,
and in math modulo a negative number is shunned anyway.
There is no modern language (python, go) that uses symmetric.

UM* and M/MOD are the exceptions handling unsigned numbers.
These are necessary (in 16 bits forths) to print numbers of more than 16 bits.
If you are not printing numbers (in 64 bits forth) above 64 bits
(USA deficit in cents is okay), then you don't need them. 1)

M/MOD is non-standard and a misnomer coming from figForth (polyforth?)
and should start with an U.

Groetjes Albert
Albert

1) Compatibility between 16/32/64 could be a reason to maintain those.
Printing unsigned numbers make actually only sense in hex, and
a separate implementation to print those is easier and faster.

>
--
"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

On 17/08/2022 07:02, albert wrote:
> In article <td7ca9$1m7i$1@gioia.aioe.org>, dxforth <dxforth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/08/2022 20:57, Zbig wrote:
>>>>> They are listed (page 158).
>>>> Hopefully they're listed as not Forth-83.
>>>
>>> There isn't in every single case a remark which standard is presented;
>>> they are listed just as „mixed-length operators”.
>>>
>>>> Is MOD signed?
>>>
>>> No such description. Just a remark: „In the Forth-83 standard, in all
>>> of Forth's division operators, the quotient is floored”.
>>
>> The stack comment should say. In the 1st edition:
>>
>> MOD (u1 u2 -- u-rem)
>>
>> */MOD (u1 u2 u3 -- u-rem u-result)
>>
>>> Brodie wrote in „Preface to the second edition”:
>>> „[..] Since the first edition was published, the Forth-83 standard has been
>>> ratified and widely adopted. Upgrading the syntax of this book to that of
>>> 83 standard was the primary reason for undertaking this revision. [..]
>>> there are still a lot of fig-Forth (Forth Interest Group) systems out there.
>>> In this edition, I've added footnotes that flag the major differences for
>>> those users [..]”
>>
>> An unenviable task. Wonder how many conversion errors/omissions :)
>
> The stack comments are wrong. All numbers are signed.
> ISO 93 leaves the decision between floored and symmetric to the
> implementor. Symmetric division is a mathematical abomination,
> and in math modulo a negative number is shunned anyway.
> There is no modern language (python, go) that uses symmetric.

Intel considered symmetric division basic and sufficient. Forth Inc
saw no need for MOD operations involving signed numbers. No idea
what mathematics thinks but there's a paper which argues Euclidean
signed division is superior to what forth calls floored-division.
There can be no 'best' division as goals differ. Pick one and
there'll be a trade-off in there.

On Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 1:57:57 AM UTC+2, dxforth wrote:
> There can be no 'best' division as goals differ.

I fully agree. You really need both and must choose between symmetric
and floored division depending on the problem to solve.

Henry

albert@cherry.(none) (albert) writes:
>There is no modern language (python, go) that uses symmetric.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo_operation#In_programming_languages>
has 97 occurences of "truncated" (symmetric). Looking for languages
that are younger (more modern?) than Python, ActionScript, C#,
Clopjure, CoffeeScript, D, Dart and many others support symmetric
remainder; some of them support symmetric in addition to floored
(e.g., CoffeeScript) or Euclidean (Dart).

>UM* and M/MOD are the exceptions handling unsigned numbers.
>These are necessary (in 16 bits forths) to print numbers of more than 16 bits.

Why would one need UM* for printing numbers?

In Gforth I see UM* (7 occurences) in string-to-number conversion (2
occurences), MS, M*/ (2 occurences), and to compute the file position
in the blocks wordset.

There is no M/MOD in Gforth. Do you mean the core word UM/MOD?

In Gforth I see UM/MOD (9 occurences) in UD/MOD, which is indeed used
in #, in DEADLINE (which waits for an absolute time), in M*/ (2
occurences), in the implementation of unsigned staged division (2
occurences; used, e.g., for optimizing <const> U/), in the
implementation of floored staged division (used, e.g., for optimizing
<const> /), and in the implementation of BLOCK.

>M/MOD is non-standard and a misnomer coming from figForth (polyforth?)
>and should start with an U.

Forth-94 and Forth-2012 have a core word UM/MOD.

Why did you bring up M/MOD?

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
New standard: https://forth-standard.org/
EuroForth 2022: https://euro.theforth.net

In article <2022Aug17.112518@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
Anton Ertl <anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>albert@cherry.(none) (albert) writes:
>>There is no modern language (python, go) that uses symmetric.
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulo_operation#In_programming_languages>
>has 97 occurences of "truncated" (symmetric). Looking for languages
>that are younger (more modern?) than Python, ActionScript, C#,
>Clopjure, CoffeeScript, D, Dart and many others support symmetric
>remainder; some of them support symmetric in addition to floored
>(e.g., CoffeeScript) or Euclidean (Dart).

Supporting is something different. We have SM/REM.

Integer division has finally won over, and Python users
are free from worrying over FM/MOD and SM/REM.

>>UM* and M/MOD are the exceptions handling unsigned numbers.
>>These are necessary (in 16 bits forths) to print numbers of more than 16 bits.
>
>Why would one need UM* for printing numbers?
Nit picking. Number I/O.

>Why did you bring up M/MOD?
It is a remnant of 80' figForth (polyforth?) that possibly
lingers somewhere.

>
>- anton

Groetjes Albert
--
"in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst