Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

> Is there any consensus on which Forth Standard is a good starting
> point for a new implementation? I've done a little reading and I
> understand Chuck Moore was not in favor of certain standards to the
> point he didn't consider them Forth.

He's not in favour of any standard: his Forth is in constant flux,
always being adpated to the needs of the moment.

> If no standard is a good starting point, is there any consensus on
> what a reference implementation should be? Any pointers to doc,
> articles etc. would be welcomed.

I'd start with Standard Forth + Forth 200x amendments.

Andrew.