On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Jim Hall <jh...@freedos.org> wrote:
> Yes, I prefer to keep the software list somewhat controlled. The software
> list should not grow too quickly, or it risks becoming bloated. But if it
> doesn't grow at all, it becomes stale. I would be happy to add a Forth
> compiler to the list, for those who like to write programs in Forth.
There's a lot of good stuff to like about Forth (and the various
communities). Just for posterity, here's a few useful links:
Speaking of that, I just found out from 4tH's Google Group that
FreeCode (FreshMeat) is in read-only mode only from now on. Meh.
"... , but links to new applications and releases are **no longer
> Of the three Forth compilers you mentioned, I appreciate that 4th is free
> software (GNU GPL v3) and appears to be updated.
Actually, I think it's LGPL v3. Close enough. ;-)
> DX Forth seems to have a vague license disclaimer; the intent seems to be
> public domain, but the author acknowledges other contributions in the package
> "may be subject to copyright by their respective owners."
Indeed, as far as I know, it's public domain. Although I'm not sure
everywhere in the world accepts such an "unlicense", I did hear
recently that SourceForge itself now supports it. (Yup, apparently
> I couldn't find a license statement in CH Forth, although it might be included
> post-installation (I didn't install it).
Can't remember. I thought I checked and found it okay. A quick check
of the homepage via translate.google.com says this:
Using CHForth is free, even for commercial purposes. For questions and
assistance, you can contact Coos Haak. For this free available system
the author assumes no liability.
If this isn't satisfactory (and admittedly it's not perfect legalese),
I can dig deeper. (See his email address at end of link below under
> So I'll add an LSM entry for 4th in DEVEL.
> Adding a Forth compiler in the DEVEL list doesn't mean programmers should
> expect programs written in Forth to be accepted into the FreeDOS BASE. The
> BASE software is core to FreeDOS, so these programs should be widely
> maintainable, using a programming language that most other FreeDOS BASE
> contributors are likely to use. We prefer BASE programs to be written in
> either C or ASM. The preferred compiler for C is OpenWatcom, and the
> preferred assembler is NASM. (See
Unless I'm counting incorrectly, there are 59 projects in "BASE". I
know you wanted to keep it as close to all "free software" as
However, I have no idea how much of that can be rebuilt easily with
OpenWatcom and NASM. Some of it is still Turbo C only. Some of it may
use a different assembler like JWasm. And of course KEYB should've
probably been pure assembly in the first place!
I agree that using a language that is horribly obscure and
non-standard wouldn't be great, but I think as long as the software
implementation and language specification are easily available (or
preferably libre), it shouldn't be that big a deal. Of course, as is,
it could still use some cleanups, but I guess it's good enough for
Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
Freedos-user mailing list