Hi Nick, Yes, I played around with various FORTH iplementations (FIG FORTH and Graforth etc.) on my Apple II back in the early 80's. These were 'threaded interpreter' implementations. I still have some old forth manuals somehwere I think. I also wrote my own rudimentary forth interpreter 'code generator' for the Burroughs B6700 architecture just for fun. The B6700 and it's successors 'Unisys A-Series' were one of the few 'true' commercial stack machine architectures, also sometimes called a 'zero address' machine because an instruction such as add, consumed operands from the top of the stackand naturally the machine level instructions were in 'postfix' order.
Also similar to Yuri I remember one of our first projects in info 101 (circa. '76) at Victoria university was to write an infix to postfix (rpn) converter. Nick Rout wrote: >>I did this in 1993 in a first year programming class. >>I look around at home and see if I still have the notes ... >> >>(Hint: when righting the parser to evaluate infix expressions, you use a stack. >>It turns out that this stack is in fact a postfix representation. Cool eh?) >> >> >> >anyone else here used the computer language forth? It's all stack.rpn >based. It is very cool and I will implement it in one of the robots I am >presently contemplating building with my son. (see previous threads re >IO programming etc) > > > >
