Most Forth implmentations I've seen are byte-code interpreters rather than compiled. Kind of like some micro's do with interpreted Basic. My memory of Fotrth is that it is stack-oriented; you push values on a stack and invoke a function which assumes certain values are on the stack. As I recall, it was not possible or was difficult to extend the run-time via add-in libraries of functions, because it's interpreted. I may be out of date on this. At the least, byte-code is much slower than compiled, but this may be unimportant for some applications.
�
----- Original Message -----
From: John KG9DK Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2006 7:48 am Subject: [AVR-Chat] forth > I have been following the thead on Basic, "C" and asm for> programing
> and then forth was mention. I would like to know more about forth
> in
> regards to the avr devics. Let me also say that I have very
> little
> experince in programing in amy language. Mostly just altering the
> code
> in some simple basic programs. I am retired so I am not bound to
> learnig the language that is most popular for the work place. I
> have
> always liked what I have read about forth and thought that I would
> like
> to learn how to program with it. I am now starting the book "C
> programming for Microcontrollers" using the AVR butterfly and the
> free
> WinAVR compiler. The comments about WinAVR compiler on this list
> and
> other places are not all that good, however it is "free" money
> wise but
> I wonder about time wise. Another questi! on is how