Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth for education Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:02:38 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 111 Message-ID: References: <0d34c96e-d56b-4d85-85f3-7379a3a1eb72@googlegroups.com> <5235eb3d.280545989@news.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:25784 On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:35:45 -0400, Alex McDonald wrote: > on 18/09/2013 14:41:25, "Rod Pemberton" wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 03:57:19 -0400, Andrew Haley >> wrote: >>> Rod Pemberton wrote: >>>> Sigh, here we go again... >>>> >>>> Every time I mention lack of syntax or language structure in Forth, >>>> I get ripped. A short while later someone who programs in Forth >>>> cites the exact issue by example. This time it happened to be Hugh. >>>> Are you guys doing this intentionally or just for "fun"? Can you >>>> truly be so blissfully unaware of the issue that you don't realize >>>> it even when you explicitly complain about it? >>> >>> How can you say we're unaware of it? We know Forth very well. The >>> argument is whether the lack of, say, syntax is a bug or a feature. >>> >> >> If it's frequently complained about, wouldn't that make it a bug? > > People frequently complain about casting in C. Who? If you're coding C correctly, casts are mostly not needed. At least, that's what most experience C programmers tell the newbs... But, casting can be useful to bypass the type system to ensure proper representation, proper truncation, or proper type conversion in situations where C's default methods don't work correctly. But, this isn't about C. > Perhaps that's a bug. And, it's still not about C... Incorrect use of casting can definately result in bugs, but at least C has a limited type system to prevent some common coding mistakes. Forth doesn't have a type system at all. >> If it's easy to misuse, wouldn't that make it a source of bugs? > > Like pointers in C? > Exactly. They are a very powerful and useful feature but also the source of coding errors for some. They're available for mis-use in Forth too. But, this is still not about C. It's about Forth. Stop deflecting. >>> And of course you get ripped. Your idea of a good way to [spend] your >>> time is to come to a Forth newsgroup and tell everyone how crap Forth >>> is. What did you expect? >>> >> >> Don't you think four decades of conversation on what's the best >> way to implement control-flow in Forth is enough? > > We've had 4 decades of discussing K&R C and the result is -- a set of > C-like languages, each claiming to fix the problems. Enough is enough, > sez I. And, we're still deflecting. The result was C89, C99, (on going)... The others aren't C. Although, I think it's worthy to note that the set of C-like languages to which you refer are not Forth-like languages. Where are the Forth-like language derivatives? The H.O.P.L. database seems to no longer be available, but when it was you could easily see that successful languages, say ALGOL, had many derivatives. (History of Programming Languages at Murdoch U. Perth, Australia) (hopl.murdoch.edu.au) Could it be true that all Forth-like languages are still ... Forth? OMG! What an epiphany. Forth users can never program in something better than Forth since all derivatives are just more Forth... ;-) Is there a reason you won't directly discuss Forth's problems? I can't believe you don't have some valid complaints. >> When it's not how >> to implement control-flow, it's how to use DOES> ... Etc., Forth is >> cryptic, Forth has no syntax. Don't you think that having the same >> conversations over and over are indicative of the truth? I.e., a >> problem exists with such issues or people wouldn't be wasting their >> time initiating discussion on them in the first place. The >> dismissiveness of those adept in Forth doesn't change that reality. >> >> E.g., when was the last time you heard a C programmer discussing >> new control-flow techniques? (never) > > Cough. Template metaprogramming vs compile time function execution. When > was the last time you heard of a Forth programmer discussing the > difference between a metaprogramming template language and the language > itself? Never. > Uh, I have no idea what 'template metaprogramming' is, so I don't see how that falls into the C repertoire. Did you mean C++'s object classes? Rod Pemberton