On 22/01/2021 15:19, Tauno Voipio wrote:
> On 22.1.21 17.03, gareth evans wrote:
>> On 22/01/2021 13:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2021 13:22, gareth evans wrote:
>>>> In my retirement, I have some ideas on language
>>>> development, essentially interactive as was BASIC
>>>> and FORTH but running at the speed of compiled
>>>> code, and the 64 bit ARM instruction set looks
>>>> like a good starter.
>>>
>>> FORTH was good stuff speed wise
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I never used it in anger, but spent a lot of time thinking
>> about it. I seem to have on my bookshelf most of the FORTH
>> and TIL primers. I was considering something like a FORTH
>> but not being based upon Reverse Polish.
>>
>> ISTR that FORTH on an RCA 1802 is in the Voyager missions?
>>
>> Now, that was a weird instruction set! ISTR 8-off 16 bit
>> registers but no 16-bit moves, all having to be done in
>> 8-bit chunks through the accumulator, and no conventional
>> subroutine call but change which of the 16-bit registers
>> at any time was the program counter!
>
>
> FORTH is as much Reverse Polish (Lukasciewicz) as the older
> HP calculators.
>

You misunderstood my comment.

Let me rephrase ... I was considering a language without using
reverse polish along the lines of FORTH's interactiveness.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05