gtoolkit VS stoneknifeforth

Your ideas sounded very much like a mixup of Common Lisp with SLIME, Smalltalk interactivity and Unison-like storage of code in a database instead of files.

I've tried all of them, I think the closest thing I've seen to what you describe, which I also find very attractive, is the GT Smalltalk environment: https://gtoolkit.com/

Have you tried that? They call this idea "moldable development" as you can "mold" your environment to your needs.

Even though I loved it, I ended up not using it much, mostly because it's a bit too heavy to keep handy for exploration all the time when needed (it takes like 1GB of RAM even when idle!)... as I already can do most of that with emacs, which is much lighter, I just stick with it.

> This power that Smalltalk systems have where the code runs in a GUI that is also the editor/debugger/etc has deeply fascinated me recently.

Have you tried emacs?

> And I'd like to actually understand a tool that I'd have to dive into that deeply, and I think I'll never have the time to truly understand all of the VM, the classes, etc.

I've recently tried to do that myself with Smalltalk via the Glamorous Toolkit[1] (a beautiful, modern Smalltalk environment based on Pharo). Because the programming environment itself comes with a Book teaching it, you can basically just read it as a normal digital book, but with the superpower that everything is editable and interactive: you can change the book itself, every code example is runnable and you can inspect the result objects right there, change it, modify the view for it... they say it's "moldable development" because you almost literally mold the environment as you write your code and learn about the platform.

> And I'd like to be able to create applications that run without shipping the entire Smalltalk VM.

That's why even though I really enjoyed SmallTalk, I can't really see it as anything more than a curiosity. I tried using it at least for my own occasional data exploration because it has good visualisation capabilities and super easy to use HTTP client/JSON parser etc., but the system is so heavy (1GB+ of RAM) that I couldn't justify keeping it open all the time like I do with emacs, on the offchance that I might need to use it for some small task.

Anyway, perhaps that's something you might be interested in.

[1] https://gtoolkit.com/

I have been building a drawing and animation system in Pharo (smalltalk) for a few months, using a really neat new UI called glamorous toolkit.

Last time I tried to "hydrate" thousands of SQL rows into objects and both Pharo and the Glamorous Toolkit froze up. Maybe that is to be expected, but I've done that a million times on the JVM without any problems.

In my opinion the idea is more than direct data manipulation. It is about how we get feedback. In drawing, the medium to draw is the same medium to read. In programming, there is often a mismatch - coding on a text file, running on somewhere else, e.g. terminal, browser, remote server. If you count surrounding activities for programming, like versioning, debugging, metering and profiling, even more system is involved. We are not even touching the myriad of SaaS offering each tackling carve out a little pie out of the programming life cycle.

Back to your question, from my naive understanding, smalltalk seems to be an all in one environment. The Glamorous Toolkit [1] seems to be that environment on steroid. I have no useful experience to share though.

https://gtoolkit.com/

Wrote a review on it on the website, copypasting:

Glamorous Toolkit[1] promotes the idea of moldable development[2].

There's a talk on it: Tudor Gîrba - Moldable development.[3]

The basic idea is to have multiple views and editors for any piece of data in your system (including code). Kind of interesting, but the toolkit looks and acts more like a fancy computational notebook type of environment, but without explicitly being a computational notebook.

The site on moldable development states its difference with literate programming:

They are similar in that they both promote the use of narratives for depicting systems. However, Literate Programming offers exactly a single narrative, and that narrative is tied to the definition of the code. Through Moldable Development we recognize that we always need multiple narratives, and that those narratives must be able to address any part of the system (not only static code).

And that's a sensible viewpoint. But I still see it as an advanced version of a literate programming, all done within an interactive environment.

The focus of Glamorous Toolkit seems to be on explaining a code base or a certain part of the system via presenting it via a custom tool.

But I am not too convinced with the top-level development model / workflow it assumes for you. I guess it's too narrowly-focused / opinionated.

It's also a custom fork of Pharo, so the question of long-term stability is even more unclear than that of Pharo itself.

I can't say I can compare it to Project Mage in any meaningful way, except it's also a live environment.

[1] https://gtoolkit.com/

Wow, that's very interesting, never heard of it before. In the first link and they've mentioned smalltalk and I remember checking out https://gtoolkit.com which I think has some of the ideas from emacs but is implemented in smalltalk. I always wondered if gtoolkit could fundamentally offer something emacs couldn't (at the principal level) but now that you've lebaled them together, I think I know the answer is no

prolly a bit outside the mainstream but -> https://gtoolkit.com/

a problem that a lot of these series run into is that the author runs out of steam before they finish writing them. crenshaw's otherwise excellent series suffers from this, for example

so far the author of this one has only written the first chapter

i've written a few didactic compilers that are complete enough to compile themselves, though nothing else

https://github.com/kragen/stoneknifeforth (from a forth-like language to an i386 linux elf executable)

https://github.com/kragen/peg-bootstrap/blob/master/peg.md (from a peg language description with semantic actions to javascript)

http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/urscheme (from a subset of scheme to at&t-syntax i386 assembly)

Look at how much room you have for data! I wonder what we can fit in there.

More seriously, a metacircular example to draw from would be: https://github.com/kragen/stoneknifeforth

i wasn't able to get a runnable forth to less than a couple of pages written in itself https://github.com/kragen/stoneknifeforth but schönfinkel's ski-combinators are maybe the simplest practical basis

    s f g x → f x (g x)

I've done all these things (except designing the hardware) and I agree that it can be very painful. I did some of them in 02008, for example: https://github.com/kragen/stoneknifeforth

The thing is, though, you can also not do all those things. You can use variables, and they don't even have to be allocated on a stack (unless you're writing a recursive function, which you usually aren't), and all the NIP TUCK ROT goes away, and with it all the Memory Championship tricks. You can test each definition interactively as you write it, and then the fact that the language is absurdly error-prone hardly matters. You can use metaprogramming so that your code is as DRY as a nun's pochola. You can use the interactivity of Forth to quickly validate your hypotheses about not just your code but also the hardware in a way you can't do with C. You can do it with GDB, but Forth is a lot faster than GDBscript, but that's not saying much because even Bash is a lot faster than GDBscript.

But Yossi was just using Forth as a programming language, like a C without local variables or type checking, not an embedded operating system. And, as I said, that's really not Forth's strength. Bash and Tcl aren't good programming languages, either. If you try to use Tcl as a substitute for C you will also be very sad. But the way they're used, that isn't that important.

I explained a more limited version of this 12 years ago: https://yosefk.com/blog/my-history-with-forth-stack-machines...

So, I don't think Forth is only useful when you have the freedom to change the problem, though programs in any language do become an awful lot easier when you have that freedom.

That's powerful enough to conveniently write, for example, a numerical root finding program for an arbitrary arithmetic expression.

But I think that within a complexity budget of 150 lines of code you can maybe be even more ambitious than that.

The example compiler in https://github.com/darius/parson/blob/master/eg_calc_compile... is a bit more stripped down than that, but in its 32 lines of code it compiles arithmetic assignment statements to a three-address RISC-like code (though using an unbounded number of registers). https://github.com/darius/parson/blob/master/eg_calc_to_rpn.... is a 16-line version that compiles the same language to a stack machine like your tutorial example.

In 66 lines of code in https://github.com/kragen/peg-bootstrap/blob/master/peg.md I wrote an example compiler which compiles a PEG grammar into a JavaScript parser for that grammar. Admittedly those 66 lines do not include an implementation of JavaScript to run the code on. It compiles the language it's written in.

In 132 lines of code in https://github.com/kragen/stoneknifeforth/blob/master/tinybo... I wrote an example compiler which compiles a crippled Forth dialect into i386 machine code, including an ELF header so you can run the result. It also compiles the language it's written in. It also doesn't include an i386 emulator to run it on.

In 83 lines of code in http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/neelcompiler.ml Neel Krishnaswami wrote a compiler from the untyped λ-calculus to a simple assembly language for a register machine. It also doesn't include an implementation of the assembly language.

In 18 lines of code in http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/meta5ix.m5, a simplification of META-II, I wrote a compiler from grammar descriptions to an assembly code for a parsing-oriented virtual machine. It compiles the language it's written in. A Python interpreter for the machine is in http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/meta5ixrun.py (109 lines of code) and a precompiled version of the compiler-compiler for bootstrapping is in http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/meta5ix.generated.m5asm.

A slightly incompatible variant of Meta5ix which instead compiles itself to C is in http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/meta5ix2c.m5 (133 lines of code, depending on how you count). (No C compiler is included.) The precompiled C output for bootstrapping is in http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/meta5ix2c.c.

Meta5ix is extremely weak and limited, really only enough for a compiler front-end; it can't, for example, do the kinds of RPN tricks we're talking about above.

Title effectively says it all. The only thing I have found is StoneKnife Forth (implementation is in tinyboot1.tbf1) but this file is implemented in the same dialect of forth it implements, which due to being minimal makes it difficult to read and comprehend efficiently (I also can't find the origin of some words such as 'byte' used in the code but not implemented by the interpreter). I would prefer something in the C family to look at but anything should do as long as it's clean enough that I could use it as a reference to reimplement the compiler without much difficulty. Thank you in advance for any help with what is seemingly quite a narrow request.

I'm pretty sure Linux ELF has always allowed you to specify the initial load address. When I first wrote StoneKnifeForth https://github.com/kragen/stoneknifeforth its load address was 0x1000, but at some point Linux stopped allowing load addresses lower than 0x10000 by default (vm.mmap_min_addr). I originally wrote it in 02008, using the lower load address, and fixed it in 02017. It's still not using 0x804800 like normal executables but 0x20000. ASLR does not affect this.

Maybe you mean that before ELF support, Linux a.out executables had to be loaded at a fixed virtual address? That's possible—I started using Linux daily in 01995, at which point a.out was already only supported for backward compatibility.