On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Richard Ottosen wrote:

> Why an interpreter? It makes for more transportable code. Only one
> compiler for many platforms. At least in an ideal world. All computing
> environments are different and thus the interpreter, and to some extent
> the compiler, must be changed to fit.
>
> This is why the BASIC Stamp doesn't really do BASIC.
>
> Ooh --- a friend of mine will be glad to hear that you included FORTH.
> Most of us in the 6502 Group ( http://www.6502group.org/ ) like to kid
> him that FORTH is a write only language. Note: this is not a intended to
> be inflammatory.

Write only language? I thought it was the only right language. :) (Actually I've
never programmed in Forth).

If you want Forth a compiler for a PIC, then checkout Mary:

http://www.pepix.net/proyectos/glazz/mary/


>From the http://www.gnupic.org/ webpage:

        Francisco Rodrigo Escobedo Robles has written a Forth compiler
        called mary. A PIC Forth. Mary PIC Forth. Do you know who Mary
        Pickford was? Remember the good ol' movies? Francisco does!


Scott