Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!rt.uk.eu.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: forth implementation for linux x64 Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 04:41:02 -0500 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: <52cbff0d$0$9236$e4fe514c@dreader35.news.xs4all.nl> 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:27728 On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 08:20:13 -0500, Albert van der Horst wrote: > In article , > Arkady Rost wrote: >> I'm really impressed by forth and looking forward to dive in >> programming with it. Suggest me please the most fresh and usable >> forth implementation for linux x64 platform. > > You shouldn't ask for fresh programs. They are [not] groceries. > > Instead you should ask for programs that are so good and stable > that there have been no changes for years, because > there are no improvements possible and no defects found. > I agree, but don't conflate "good" and "stable" with no bugs. A couple of quotes of mine from 2007: "A couple other problems are that the code might not be under your control and that the code may still be active. When it comes to code written by others, I tend to prefer code that is well tested (few bugs) and dead (no new bugs)." "[that project] appears to be a dead project so the code is guaranteed to be stable, i.e., no further new bugs by hyperactive developers..." Of course, I think that implies you also indicated your preference for a dead Forth too, since an active or an alive Forth won't be stable. Rod Pemberton