Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "HAA" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Yet another language ( was Yet another draw of rectangle) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 23:05:54 +1100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 51 Message-ID: References: <6755c77f-2dd0-43cc-af59-91ea3449dbbc@googlegroups.com><14a2bc75-d574-4103-b6fa-5ff0fedfc63a@googlegroups.com><87polpbrw3.fsf@nightsong.com><87r3649c25.fsf@nightsong.com><2c1337f8-05f8-43e9-8094-e8c015d00ccf@googlegroups.com><87mvgrandj.fsf@nightsong.com><42f2d0ba-a1bc-41b6-bc35-50a065bf0f9d@googlegroups.com> <20161129004209.27f63172@_> NNTP-Posting-Host: mphDUto5PPJsc8ZZw3yH4g.user.gioia.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Priority: 3 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:53042 Rod Pemberton wrote: > On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:22:40 +1100 > "HAA" wrote: > > > hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > > > It would make more sense to compare Forth to C than to assembler > > > --- Forth and C have similar uses --- of course, C has been > > > described as a portable assembly-language, and for a long time I > > > thought of Forth as being an over-grown macro-assembler, so > > > comparing both of them to assembler is reasonable. > > > > Interesting C being described that way. It's low level in a sense > > but users are still at the mercy of compiler, presupplied libraries > > and standards. Forth is one of the few languages that's truly 'grass > > roots' - where users could create from ground up. No reliance on > > anybody or thing. Anyone that's used MASM has probably discovered > > there are things which can't be done, except perhaps awkwardly. So > > Forth gets a tick over asm :) > > > > "... where users could create from [the] ground up." > > I'd argue that statement describes the failing of Forth, not it's > merit. That's part of the reason why Forth is called a "write-once" > language. The others being that it's simple syntax can be > exceptionally cryptic, the code can be untraceable or difficult to > understand, and Forth requires the user to juggle stack items. Without > a large, standardized, and ubiquitous set of functionality, every Forth > application has to develop it's own solution to the same basic > programming problems and situations. This requires extra work, time or > man-hours, on the part of the programmer, and interferes with > portability, as the resulting code is non-standard. The code is unique > to that application, when every application could've used the same > functionality. It also means that any bad solutions or poor designs > will be passed along forever with that application. It also means that > numerous programs will most assuredly have bad, buggy, or limited > implementations of functionality which is commonly used. A programmer > needs to have a certain set of standard tools or components which are > widely available and easy to use. > > > Rod Pemberton Elsewhere you mention x86 assembly. You appear to acknowledge the skill of asm programmers who work in environments largely devoid of standards and libraries. Yet when Forth programmers do the same, it's seen as a "failing" of the language?