alt.hn

8/21/2026 at 6:59:52 PM

Tumble Forth – from assembly to OS with C compiler (2023)

 https://tumbleforth.hardcoded.net/

by vicek22

8/21/2026 at 11:21:11 PM

For the C compiler that I developed to replace the GNU Mes compiler in the live-bootstrap project, I also used a Forth like language that uses two stack. One stack for parameters and return values and one for the return addresses and local variables. The Forth like language is transpiled in assembly and through some steps made into an ELF file. The targets are: x86, x86_46, and arm64. Work on supporting riscv64 has started, but is currently on hold due to other responsibilities. If there is anyone willing to complete it, I do have some small funds as a bonus.

by fjfaase

8/22/2026 at 5:07:04 PM

https://github.com/romforth/romforth already has a port to RISV-V for both 32 and 64 bit, (among many others). So if you don't mind lowering your language implementation to romforth (or even rewriting your compiler to directly generate it), you should be able to use it "for free", no funds required ;)

by romforth

8/22/2026 at 5:32:06 AM

For years I've had an idea in my head to add a Forth to the old game Master of Orion so that I could automate some of my common actions in the game. There is an open source GIThub called 1oom with source code for the game and I thought I would just write my own Forth. Well, I've recently been using AI's to code, so I asked GPT and it suggested that I use ficl rather than writing my own Forth. It helped me add ficl to 1oom. I've added Forth words to access most of the game variables and I've just begun adding forth words that can manipulate the game state. It's been fun. I had not written much, if any, Forth code in the last 30 years, so it's been a fun trip down memory lane.

by irchans

8/22/2026 at 4:57:50 AM

I think it's a bit silly to assume that a supply chain collapse will lead people to using your handmade unoptimized systems stack and not well-understood commodity OSes like Linux or FreeRTOS.

Reminds me of preppers hoping for an apocalypse that makes their buckets of dried food valuable but leaves their access to fresh water and medicine intact.

It's probably an interesting series regardless, I just find that framing silly

by jackb4040

8/24/2026 at 9:16:51 AM

I would assume in such collapse, people will use whatever they can find, and without our existing knowledge, it is no different than trying to make heads or tails from ancient civilisations technologies.

by pjmlp

8/22/2026 at 5:59:00 AM

The bloat will continue until morale improves.

by andai

8/22/2026 at 12:36:06 AM

Oh yeah, this is right up my alley. I've been thinking about making a Forth on bare metal for a while (made a Forth interpreter in C last summer, and a tiny amount of testing stack manipulation in hand-assembled machine language on a C64U), and the thought I (coincidentally) had moments before seeing this link was about making a boot sector on some floppies I just got for my 8088 IBM PC. I know that will only work for the Real Mode part but it might be fun to start there anyway. Edit: I knew about CollapseOS but didn’t realize this had been around too.

by drivers99

8/22/2026 at 1:25:58 AM

> An alternate way to go about this is to sidestep that complexity entirely and build your own OS.

> We'll go bare metal and then build an operating system of our own, with a C compiler of our own. It's simpler this way.

I love the audacity of those statements. And I appreciate this sort of approach which says "let's implement the simplest possible version of _______ to learn how it is done."

by zovirl

8/21/2026 at 8:23:06 PM

Point of clarification: Rummaging through that site, and as far I can see - the Forth language is not used.

by einpoklum

8/21/2026 at 8:42:59 PM

It is. When you read "6. A Tale Of Two Stacks" you can be pretty sure that Forth is involved.

by astrobe_

8/21/2026 at 8:50:13 PM

Did you miss the C compiler written in Forth?

by ozonator

8/23/2026 at 7:32:37 AM

This is great!:

>"The Forth interpret loop is very simple:

1. Read a word [string] from input.

2. Is it a number?

3. Yes? [Convert it and] Push that number to [the] Parameter Stack and go to 1.

4. No? Then is that word [string] in the dictionary?

5. Yes? Execute it [look up the associated address in memory and jump to it] and go to 1.

6. No? “Word not found” error. Go to 1."

...basically, that's all a Forth Interpreter is(!), in pseudocode (or in higher-level English as a code abstraction, if you prefer...)

(Key observation: There are no additional parameters to parse, no additional parameter lists to pass, because every FORTH function works on whatever data is in the stack, directly. (Every FORTH function could be said to be 'generic' from that perspective.) Which means that all we really need to do is look up the address for a function name and jump to it. That, and have a way to put parameters onto the stack. And that's all we basically need!)

Language compilers and language interpreters (programs that implement an underlying programming language) -- do not get much simpler!

Compare (cf.) the above to the complexity of the simplest compiler, or even the complexity of the simplest LISP (or LISP-like language) interpreter... it's simpler and less complex than either of those...

by peter_d_sherman

8/22/2026 at 8:41:05 AM

[dead]

by just60sec