Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: jonesforth: taking up the challenge
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:51:47 -0700
Organization: Nightsong/Fort GNOX
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <7xk3lqsid8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
References: <51ae2e6d$0$26867$e4fe514c@dreader37.news.xs4all.nl> <JJWdnUypFu5rby3MnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@supernews.com> <51b1efd2$0$6358$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> <7xfvwund59.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <2013Jun11.165956@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <7xehc83xx2.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <2013Jun12.171604@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <7xppvn880t.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <2013Jun17.181907@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <7xk3lrc1t5.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <kPSdnVsrFequuV3MnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@supernews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="d94d289a4df6ae47ea4d4f8b2ae808e7"; logging-data="4944"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX181pSUw7Q+pbaGAZfO5i+Qj"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uJvMonlMcWGzt3Khr3FlrP+7Dog= sha1:nccvWjObnSRFONLAqW+eqQEAuYU=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:23787

Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> writes:
>> A naive Lisp ... is much more conceptually clear, IMHO.
> Ach, I don't believe that. Maybe LISP 1.5, but probably not even
> then. We'd have to see the full source code, with nothing elided, to
> know for sure.  Even a full EVAL is damn complicated when compared
> with Forth.

LISP 1.5 was before my time, but I wrote a Lisp with mostly similar
semantics to Emacs Lisp a while back.  It was much less efficient than
Emacs Lisp but was about 1/4 the size.  As I remember, EVAL and APPLY
(they called each other recursively) were together about 1 page of very
straightforward C.  That's comparable to rather fewer lines of Forth
because Forth programs tend to jam more tokens onto each line.  I
remember being surprised at how little subtlety there was to anything in
it.

Here is another very small (maybe too small to be useful) Lisp that John
P. used to post about:

   http://www.piumarta.com/software/lysp/

It is actually kind of ugly imho.