search

ForthHub / discussion

Discussion repository for Forth enthusiasts.
118 stars 4 forks source link

Forth-2012 systems #74

Open ruv opened 6 years ago

ruv commented 6 years ago

Could we form a list of Forth systems that pass Forth 2012 test suit?

bodhi-baum commented 4 years ago

AFAIK there are DurexForth for the C64 and gforth at the moment which claim to be 2012 conform.

ikysil commented 4 years ago

https://github.com/ikysil/ikforth

bodhi-baum commented 4 years ago

solo-forth and feline

GeraldWodni commented 4 years ago

It would be great if that could be a column in the Forth-Systems wiki. Then I could add them more prominently to https://forth-standard.org

ruv commented 4 years ago

It's better to keep and maintain this information in a data base. A textual data base. I would propose an XML file :)

A possible structure (just a sketch):

<list>
<item updated="2020-09-13">
  <name>shortName</name>
  <title>longer title, if any</title>
  <repository.url stars="29">URL</repository.url>
  <home.url>URL</home.url>
  <cellsize>32</cellsize>
  <cellsize.list><!-- as a variant -->
    <i>32</i>
    <i>64</i>
  </cellsize.list>
  <lang>ProgrammingLanguage</lang>
  <platform.list>
    <i>CPU/OS</i>
    <i>x86/Linux</i>
    <i>ARM</i><!-- bare metal -->
    <i>JVM</i><!-- portable platform -->
    <i>dotNet</i><!-- portable platform -->
  </platform.list>
  <release.info>
    <initial>2010-02-01</initial>
    <last>2010-08-03</last>
  </release.info>
</item>
...
</list>

Perhaps, it's worth to place each item into a separate file — to avoid big files that harder to maintain:

- catalog/
  - pforth.xml
  - gforth.xml
  - ...
- catalog.index.xml