Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Rubin Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: FORTH on the Advanced Placement Computer Science ! Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 13:08:51 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 29 Message-ID: <874msg4x7g.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> References: <7x8uhy0zon.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7x4msm0wf9.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xlhlwwha1.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xvbl0z0jl.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xa92bbpdo.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <20141225233409.2bec4fb5@maxa-pc> <7x1tnngqt9.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <20141226022222.6f32fe7f@maxa-pc> <7xd277yybp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <7xbnmquimp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> <3d03e403-7181-4ab3-8a2f-a23d0c4843f7@googlegroups.com> <87y4pt4qkl.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="9be1734e45595b2e29ecbdd3ce926380"; logging-data="21388"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18K+Id4MueoES7tmKTKwkkf" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:8iJysj1VAbzroqvwfoP8kL8Z0gI= sha1:ntRuJ85CBre1685K/VLpt5851ic= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:35299 krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org writes: > I assume you mean things like bounds checking for arrays, type > checking and so on. Forth programmers typically already dispense with > much of this hand-holding and manage to write robust programs > anyway. Forth programs tend to be small enough to be comprehensible all at once, which helps a lot. Yes I know there are exceptions but they seem to require a lot of human attention to check things that in other systems are done by the compiler. > I'm only suggesting that the bias against using assembly language in > application development may be borne of inexperience, rather than > untested claims of improved development time, maintainability, > reliability, etc. for high level languages. I thought that ship sailed in the 1980's. > In fact, I see a benefit to assembler when one needs to understand > clearly the machine instructions associated with a particular code > fragment. That need surely arises sometimes, but not often. > But, I would most likely use assembler in conjunction with high-level > languages in nearly all situations. I can't think of the most recent time I've wanted to write anything in assembler for any processor that had good compilers.