Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: rickman Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Really? Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 13:06:59 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <1239a88b-a574-401b-9454-50ac7e000049@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 18:05:14 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f08d7889a9263d54ddef7383be2c71e4"; logging-data="7730"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19pmSErKTB/LAfW1HC18jz3" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 In-Reply-To: <1239a88b-a574-401b-9454-50ac7e000049@googlegroups.com> Cancel-Lock: sha1:y7xfmtQfrSeiNUipTNa9+ctoyOk= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:54676 On 2/6/2017 9:46 AM, Mark Wills wrote: > "As for Forth, although it has dedicated advocates, it's > explicit stack orientation and its lack of modularity limit > the scale of Forth programs. One of the largest Forth efforts > was an integrated operating system called Valdocs (Valuable > Document System) on the Epson QX-10. The software remained buggy > couldn't be updated quickly enough for the machine to remain > competitive - although you could just as easilly blame the > computer's Z-80 processor (since at the time the 8088 based IBM PC > and 68000 based Apple Macintosh were being introduced) and difficulty > in finding experienced Forth programmers. Whatever the cause, this > soured the acceptance of Forth for large scale projects." > > http://www.cpushack.com/CPU/cpuAppendB.html#Forth This would be classed as an opinion piece. There is no analysis and no references. It's just the author's opinion. How the heck is Forth limited in modularity? -- Rick C