Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #4887

Re: Interesting article

Show key headers only | View raw

"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> writes:

> "Hugh Aguilar" <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Ten years later, Forth was completely dead and C was
>> dominant everywhere.

This is ten years after "the late 80s"; i.e., the late 90s.  I was
learning to program in the late 90s, and only looked at Forth in
2000-2001 after someone made a disparaging reference to it in EFnet
#Perl, and I wondered if that was deserved.

It might be fun and self-indulgent to try to pin down when exactly Forth
'died', and who exactly was its killer, but I think it's more useful to
wonder if and how Forth has improved since the late 90s.  A quick pass
at this: I think people like I was are much more likely to hear about
it, and that the better systems for them to find are all better than
they were in the 90s, but what they'll find first are JonesForth or
Retro or Factor or a hundred 10%-implemented my-toy-Forths with cute
names like 'Fifth' and 'Finf is not Forth' in public source
repositories.

> I think that says more about C than Forth.  The C standards stripped C of
> it's underlying hardware implementation just like Forth standards.

F94 did this.  My understanding of F79 and F83 is that they were fairly
disasterous, with people walking away from Forth after F83 was so
incompatible with F79, and with both being too restrictive on system
implementations.

> But, as I learn more and more Forth while implementing my
> interpreter,

Ugh.  Look, you've been _lied_ to.  You learn Forth the way you learn
anything: by setting out to learn it, by reading tutorials and books, by
writing Forth code and getting people to tell you how awful it is, etc.

You do not "learn by implementing"; people who do that produce shit like
JonesForth.  If it's taking you a while to accomplish a goal with means
inapproriate to the accomplishment of that goal, you haven't been given
great insights into the experience of people who approach the goal with
actually appropriate means.

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Interesting article Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2011-07-28 13:32 +0100
  Re: Interesting article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-28 13:06 +0000
    Re: Interesting article Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-07-29 14:49 -0700
      Re: Interesting article Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2011-07-29 19:32 -0500
        Re: Interesting article Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-08-02 16:27 -0700
      Re: Interesting article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-07-30 11:41 +0000
        Re: Interesting article Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-08-02 16:38 -0700
        Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-02 17:47 -0700
          Re: Interesting article Peter Fälth <peter.falth@tin.it> - 2011-08-03 07:26 +0200
            Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-11 16:19 -0700
              Re: Interesting article Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-08-11 22:57 -0500
                Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-12 16:40 -0700
                Re: Interesting article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-14 09:59 -0400
                Re: Interesting article Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 13:13 -0500
                Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-15 03:27 -0500
                Re: Interesting article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-08-16 17:49 +0000
                Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-17 02:47 -0500
                Re: Interesting article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-14 08:28 -1000
                Re: Interesting article Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-08-14 20:41 +0200
                Re: Interesting article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 13:01 -0700
                Re: Interesting article Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2011-08-14 14:14 -0500
                Re: Interesting article kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-08-14 21:05 -0500
                Re: Interesting article BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-08-14 22:23 -0700
                Re: Interesting article clvrmnky <spamtrap@clevermonkey.org> - 2011-10-23 02:13 +0000
              Re: Interesting article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-13 12:29 -0700
                Re: Interesting article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-08-13 10:42 -1000
                Re: Interesting article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-13 13:50 -0700
                Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-08-14 03:14 -0500
                Re: Interesting article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 02:12 -0700
                Re: Interesting article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-08-14 14:31 -0700
                Re: Interesting article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-08-14 09:58 -0400
    Re: Interesting article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-29 19:18 -0700
      Re: Interesting article Julian Fondren <ayrnieu@gmail.com> - 2011-07-30 04:13 -0500
      Re: Interesting article Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-31 10:07 +0000
        Re: Interesting article mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-07-31 11:31 +0200
          Re: Interesting article Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-31 22:24 +0000
  Re: Interesting article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-07-28 10:02 -0500

csiph-web