Just picked it up because of my fascination with programming languages.

It is fun to note the number of models of small languages that emerged from the early days of computing which would all fit in the L1 cache of a current processor. But they could also be used as an interesting way of doing GPU/APU macros. When I worked at Intel I implemented a simple interpreter like this to drive the compute element of the 82786 graphics chip that Intel had produced. As that 'engine' didn't have much stack support my interpreter was more like Mouse than Forth. It let me write simple exerciser tests for the chip like "fill a window region with a pattern" or "do cookie cutter blits between two regions."

I also find it fun when students learn a language like this and suddenly internalize the difference between "programming" and "computation". We joke you can write Fortran in any language but that joke is funny for me because it expressed the difference between someone who was programming by 'pattern matching' and people who were programming by 'expressing computation through language elements.' (yeah it sounds kind of snooty but it isn't, it is the difference between algorithms which can be expressed in any language vs using the statements of known programming language to similarly express that algorihm in a different language). The more ways you learn to express something I feel like the better you understand what is part of the algorithm vs what is part of the language syntax.

However... it doesn't have stack manipulation, a dictionary, or the ability to handle strings in any fashion.

It's a cute little language, you can solve a lot of problems with it, but it's not the Forth you're looking for. ;-)