Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #11299 > unrolled thread

forth vs common lisp

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-04-14 17:05 -0700
    Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-14 17:10 -0700
      Re: forth vs common lisp Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-04-15 08:49 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-15 10:02 -0700
    Re: forth vs common lisp Fanzo <cristianof6@gmail.com> - 2012-04-15 17:47 +0200
      Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-15 11:20 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-04-15 22:22 +0200
          Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-15 13:29 -0700
            Re: forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 09:33 -0700
      Re: forth vs common lisp lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> - 2012-04-15 23:44 +0000
    Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-15 17:41 -0700
    Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-18 09:49 -0700
      Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-18 19:34 +0100
        Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-18 18:50 -0700
          Re: forth vs common lisp "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-19 04:08 +0200
            Re: forth vs common lisp Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 06:25 +0300
              Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 19:55 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 21:39 +0300
                  Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 20:47 +0100
                    Re: forth vs common lisp Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 22:37 +0300
                      Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 21:59 +0100
            Re: forth vs common lisp Roelf Toxopeus <rt4all@notthis.hetnet.nl> - 2012-04-19 09:28 +0200
            Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-19 01:03 -0700
          Re: forth vs common lisp kodifik <kodifik@eurogaran.com> - 2012-04-19 02:05 -0700
            Re: forth vs common lisp Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-04-19 04:29 -0500
              Re: forth vs common lisp Tamas Papp <tkpapp@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 10:15 +0000
                Re: forth vs common lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-19 08:45 -0700
            Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-19 14:15 -0700
              Re: forth vs common lisp Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 16:06 -0700
                Re: forth vs common lisp "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-20 05:24 +0200
                  Re: forth vs common lisp lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> - 2012-04-20 04:17 +0000
                    Re: forth vs common lisp Don Geddis <don@geddis.org> - 2012-04-20 08:34 -0700
                      Re: forth vs common lisp lynx <rinkasu@kaze.void.null> - 2012-04-20 16:54 +0000
                        Re: forth vs common lisp Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-04-20 17:03 +0000
                        Re: forth vs common lisp Don Geddis <don@geddis.org> - 2012-04-20 16:57 -0700
                          Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-21 13:06 +0100
                  Re: forth vs common lisp Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 13:20 -0700
                    Re: forth vs common lisp "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-20 23:14 +0200
                      Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-21 11:04 -0700
                        Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-21 22:12 +0100
                          Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-21 15:19 -0700
                            Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-22 01:01 +0100
                              Re: forth vs common lisp BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-04-21 18:35 -0700
                                Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-22 03:13 +0100
                              Re: FreeDOS CL "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-22 10:58 +0200
                                Re: FreeDOS CL "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2012-04-22 11:01 +0200
                                  Re: FreeDOS CL quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-06-06 16:01 -0700
                            Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-22 06:18 -0700
                          Re: forth vs common lisp Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-04-22 03:43 +0000
                    Re: forth vs common lisp Tim Bradshaw <tfb@tfeb.org> - 2012-04-21 13:02 +0100
                    Re: forth vs common lisp Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-04-21 16:29 +0000
                Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-21 14:38 -0700
          Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 11:17 +0100
          Re: forth vs common lisp Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 15:39 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-18 22:17 -0700
          Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 10:11 +0100
            Re: forth vs common lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-19 01:28 -0700
              Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 10:37 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp Ecki <ecki@intershop.de> - 2012-04-19 12:12 +0200
                Re: forth vs common lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-19 09:35 -1000
                  Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 21:56 +0100
                    Re: forth vs common lisp "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-04-19 11:25 -1000
                      Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 00:00 +0100
            Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 09:49 -0700
              Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 19:15 +0100
                Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 12:01 -0700
                  Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-19 21:12 +0100
                    Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 15:25 -0700
                      Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 00:59 +0100
                        Re: forth vs common lisp Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-04-19 18:49 -0700
                        Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-20 07:14 -0700
                          Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 20:57 +0100
                            Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 21:21 +0100
                              Re: forth vs common lisp Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 12:21 +0200
                                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-22 12:27 +0100
                                  Re: forth vs common lisp Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-22 14:59 +0200
                                    Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-22 15:25 +0100
                                    Re: forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-06-03 15:09 -0700
                                      Re: forth vs common lisp Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-06-03 18:21 -0700
                                        Re: forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-06-03 18:58 -0700
                                        Re: forth vs common lisp and the abstraction claims of haskell and lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-06-06 16:01 -0700
                                Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-22 15:38 +0100
                                Re: forth vs common lisp jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-04-22 06:23 -0700
                            Re: forth vs common lisp John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-04-21 13:30 -0700
              Re: forth vs common lisp Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-04-21 18:12 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-20 11:55 +0200
          Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 12:14 +0100
            Re: forth vs common lisp Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-20 16:56 +0200
              Re: forth vs common lisp Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REMOVE@gmail.REMOVE.com> - 2012-04-20 19:52 +0100
        Re: forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-05-22 02:34 -0700
      Re: forth vs common lisp Rugxulo <rugxulo@gmail.com> - 2012-04-19 15:10 -0700
      Re: forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-04-24 09:58 -0700
      Re: forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-05-22 02:31 -0700
        Re: forth vs common lisp Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-05-22 12:55 +0300
          Re: forth vs common lisp quiet_lad <gavcomedy@gmail.com> - 2012-05-28 15:19 -0700

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#11299 — forth vs common lisp

cl claims to be the most powerful programming language in the world!!!
can forth outdo it?
www.paulgraham.com

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11300

On Apr 14, 8:05 pm, quiet_lad <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> cl claims to be the most powerful programming language in the world!!!
> can forth outdo it?www.paulgraham.com

cl *itself* claims that?

Why, sure, Forth can outdo that ... those, OTOH, most any language
can:

: .Forth-Claim ( -- )
   CR ." I am more powerful than the most powerful "
      ." programming language in the world ! !! !!!"
   CR ;

Outdoing *claims* is easy. Its backing them up that's tricky.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11318

On Apr 15, 1:10 am, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 8:05 pm, quiet_lad <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > cl claims to be the most powerful programming language in the world!!!
> > can forth outdo it?www.paulgraham.com
>
> cl *itself* claims that?
>
> Why, sure, Forth can outdo that ... those, OTOH, most any language
> can:
>
> : .Forth-Claim ( -- )
>    CR ." I am more powerful than the most powerful "
>       ." programming language in the world ! !! !!!"
>    CR ;
>
> Outdoing *claims* is easy. Its backing them up that's tricky.

Well, for many many years I dismissed Forth as crap simply because I
couldn't read/understand it. I don't want to fall into the same trap
again (I know next to nothing about Lisp) but it sure looks like a
'write only' language to me right now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11323

I agree. I designed ScriptLanguage to use RPN because of this. Sometimes [ ] are needed to surround a nested parse token or item, but literals "" delimited auto stack, and all tokens must be space delimited like forth. The brackets in lisp are due to the very simple parse rules, and the need to nest lists to appear as single symbols to the parser. It is possible to make a complex parser in lisp, and make it do a macro preprocessing of any input making the extensible language you need. But chicken and egg.

Cheers Jacko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11320

quiet_lad wrote:
> cl claims to be the most powerful programming language in the world!!!
> can forth outdo it?
> www.paulgraham.com

maybe, anyway too much parenthesis

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11330

On Apr 15, 11:47 am, Fanzo <cristian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> quiet_lad wrote:
> > cl claims to be the most powerful programming language in the world!!!
> > can forth outdo it?
> >www.paulgraham.com
>
> maybe, anyway too much parenthesis

The "l" *is* an abbreviation for an acronym for "littered with
inherently silly parentheses" or some such ( lots of, intrinsically,
etc.). Take out the parentheses and you'd have to change the name.

Whereas FORTH stands for Find Obfuscated Reverse-polish Threading
Here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11331

On 15.04.2012 20:20, BruceMcF wrote:
> On Apr 15, 11:47 am, Fanzo<cristian...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> quiet_lad wrote:
>>> cl claims to be the most powerful programming language in the world!!!
>>> can forth outdo it?
>>> www.paulgraham.com
>>
>> maybe, anyway too much parenthesis
>
> The "l" *is* an abbreviation for an acronym for "littered with
> inherently silly parentheses" or some such ( lots of, intrinsically,
> etc.). Take out the parentheses and you'd have to change the name.
>
> Whereas FORTH stands for Find Obfuscated Reverse-polish Threading
> Here.

IIRC Apple once developed a language called Dylan that was basically a 
Common Lisp without parentheses.

But obviously they trashed it for Objective-C.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11332

On Apr 15, 4:22 pm, "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote:
> But obviously they trashed it for Objective-C.

I'll not say what I at one time maintained C stood for, since I no
longer use language like that very often. Indeed, since its been over
15 years since I've had to program in C, the animosity has cooled
substantially.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11571

On Apr 15, 1:29 pm, BruceMcF <agil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 4:22 pm, "A. K." <a...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> > But obviously they trashed it for Objective-C.
>
> I'll not say what I at one time maintained C stood for, since I no
> longer use language like that very often. Indeed, since its been over
> 15 years since I've had to program in C, the animosity has cooled
> substantially.

lol

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11337

In <4f8afc4e$0$1381$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> Fanzo <cristianof6@gmail.com> writes:

>quiet_lad wrote:
>> cl claims to be the most powerful programming language in the world!!!
>> can forth outdo it?
>> www.paulgraham.com

"Most powerful?"  For what?  I found it a satisfying language to work
with.  You might, too.  Or you might not.

Most Lisp editors have built-in "paren matching," so the parenthesis
don't really pose an issue.

Like Forth, it is hardly a "write only" language in skilled hands.

It is, however, a very different proposition than Forth.  Skip the
language war.  Get a copy of Touretsky or Seibel and try it for
yourself!

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/LispBook/
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/

(Graham's books may be too hard to start out with.)

Clozure CL, SBCL, and CMUCL are excellent, mature, and freely available
CL implementations.  Take your pick.

I happen to like both Forth and Common Lisp.  I really like colorForth,
too.  I will not compare these here.  Each of them appeals to me
aesthetically for different reasons.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11338

Get free42 and code :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11379

On Apr 14, 6:05 pm, quiet_lad <gavcom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> cl claims to be the most powerful programming language in the world!!!
> can forth outdo it?www.paulgraham.com

Any language that you write programs in is more powerful than any
language that you don't write programs in.

Gavino, you could write a program in GW-BASIC and that would make GW-
BASIC the most powerful language in the world --- as compared to not
writing programs in Lisp, Forth, etc..

I think that Lisp is a better language for desktop-computer
programming than Forth, but that Forth is better for micro-controller
programming than Lisp. I don't know Lisp very well though, so I use
Forth for desktop-computer programming. When I work as a computer
programmer, I use whatever language my employer uses --- that is the
"most powerful" language in the sense that it causes a paycheck to
appear every Friday. Right now I work as a cab-driver, so I just
program for fun --- any language that seems interesting and fun is the
"most powerful" within that context --- this changes from day to day.

Stop pestering everybody with these weird questions! What is the most
powerful language in the world? Could Forth be used to guide a
spaceship to Pluto? Do dogs smile? Who built the Giza pyramid complex?
What is the sound of one hand clapping? What brilliance would result
if Gavino were able to hold a thought in his head for more than 30
seconds?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11382

In comp.lang.forth, Hugh Aguilar wrote:

> I think that Lisp is a better language for desktop-computer
> programming than Forth,

...because?

Not writing anything in Lisp - but I'm using TCL, which has somewhat
Lisp-like syntax. And although one doesn't need to use as many
parentheses, as in case of Lisp - it's still a problem: to keep code
readable, there is a must to use loads of transitory variables. Only to
replace something like this:

  set a [doIt1 [doIt2 [doIt3 $a1 $b1 $c1] [doIt4 $x1 $y1 $z1]] [doIt5 [doIt6 $a2 $b2 $c2] [doIt7 $x2 $y2 $z2]]]

with:

  set b [doIt3 $a1 $b1 $c1]
  set c [doIt4 $x1 $y1 $z1]
  set d [doIt6 $a2 $b2 $c2]
  set e [doIt7 $x2 $y2 $z2]
  set a [doIt1 [doIt2 $a $c] [doIt5 $d $e]]

Using Lisp it can be even worse, it seems. Lisp seems to me (well, I may
be wrong) a language for people more "purely theoretically" - and less
technically - oriented. For them indeed it can be "most powerful LitW",
since it better suits them.

> but that Forth is better for micro-controller programming than Lisp.

This goes without saying.
-- 
Forth is a preserver of health (Hippocrates)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11384

On Apr 18, 12:34 pm, Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REM...@gmail.REMOVE.com>
wrote:
> In comp.lang.forth, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>
> > I think that Lisp is a better language for desktop-computer
> > programming than Forth,
>
> ...because?

Because the Lispers have put in the time and effort to provide
beaucoup libraries of useful code. In Forth you have to write
everything from scratch --- nobody has time to dink around all day
implementing low-level code before even starting the application
program --- the work world is all about being productive.

Also, CL has CLOS and Racket has something similar. This can help
speed up script writing. I don't think that it is all that useful for
large programs, but I haven't written enough large programs in my life
to really comment. I don't think that it is appropriate for Forth at
all.

I think that Forth could be used for large programs on the desktop,
but only if somebody were willing to invest the time and effort into
writing a lot of libraries of support code (this implies a big budget
and a relaxed schedule) --- what has been available for decades in the
Lisp community. Both Forth and Lisp are extensible, so these are the
only two languages that I would consider for a large project. Nobody
wants to hire me (or any Forther) to write a large program though, so
we will never know how well Forth would work. The largest Forth
program I've written was the dxf to gcode translator that I did at
Testra, and it was a major PITA primarily because of a complete lack
of libraries of data-structures (it would be a lot easier now with my
novice package available; I was primarily motivated by that experience
when I wrote my novice package) --- my MFX cross-compiler at Testra
was also quite large, but a compiler is so different from an
application program that I wouldn't really consider it to be relevant
to this discussion.

Forth failed, not because Forth is a bad language, but rather because
of a lack of leadership. Nobody was writing libraries of useful code.
Nobody was serious about supporting application programming ---
everybody was dinking around with science-fair projects involving
compiler-writing that had no practical value (there is some "dink-
around disease" in the Lisp world too, but it is an epidemic in the
Forth world). Also, the ANS-Forth standard was horrible --- this was
also the result of a lack of leadership --- it was too wishy-washy in
that it waffled on important aspects of the language, and it also
failed to provide myriad useful functions that are very difficult to
implement in Forth and should certainly be implemented in assembly-
language (but they have to be in the standard for assembly-language to
be used). There was way too much concern about legacy code, and not
enough concern about the future --- and the result was the Forth
didn't have a future at all --- Forth effectively died in 1994.

> Not writing anything in Lisp - but I'm using TCL, which has somewhat
> Lisp-like syntax. And although one doesn't need to use as many
> parentheses, as in case of Lisp - it's still a problem: to keep code
> readable, there is a must to use loads of transitory variables. Only to
> replace something like this:
>
>   set a [doIt1 [doIt2 [doIt3 $a1 $b1 $c1] [doIt4 $x1 $y1 $z1]] [doIt5 [doIt6 $a2 $b2 $c2] [doIt7 $x2 $y2 $z2]]]
>
> with:
>
>   set b [doIt3 $a1 $b1 $c1]
>   set c [doIt4 $x1 $y1 $z1]
>   set d [doIt6 $a2 $b2 $c2]
>   set e [doIt7 $x2 $y2 $z2]
>   set a [doIt1 [doIt2 $a $c] [doIt5 $d $e]]
>
> Using Lisp it can be even worse, it seems. Lisp seems to me (well, I may
> be wrong) a language for people more "purely theoretically" - and less
> technically - oriented. For them indeed it can be "most powerful LitW",
> since it better suits them.

This seems to be the same argument made against Forth, in that bad
Forthers tend to have too much "stack-juggling" --- there are several
ways to avoid this in Forth, and likely in Lisp too. I typically try
to package data into structs, and the structs into lists, as my
primary technique (this is why my novice package has so much support
for lists, and also why I think that I would be a natural for Lisp).

I don't really know enough about Lisp to debate this subject beyond
what I've said here. I've never written any non-trivial program in
Lisp. Note that I cross-posted this to comp.lang.lisp --- maybe
somebody who knows what they are talking about can join the
conversation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11385

Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Apr 18, 12:34 pm, Zbiggy <zbigniew2011REM...@gmail.REMOVE.com>
> wrote:
>> In comp.lang.forth, Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>>
>> > I think that Lisp is a better language for desktop-computer
>> > programming than Forth,
>>
>> ...because?
>
> I think that Forth could be used for large programs on the desktop,
> but only if somebody were willing to invest the time and effort into
> writing a lot of libraries of support code (this implies a big budget
> and a relaxed schedule) --- what has been available for decades in the
> Lisp community. Both Forth and Lisp are extensible, so these are the
> only two languages that I would consider for a large project. 

There was a Forth implementation on MacOS that allowed to write Mac
applications.

There were and are GUI libraries, eg. the Mac OS Toolbox, the Mac OS X
Cocoa framework, Gtk, Qt, etc.  The only thing you need from a language,
is some programmer-friendly FFI to be able to call those libraries
easily, and you're all set to write big applications.

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11386

On 04/19/2012 05:08 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:

> There were and are GUI libraries, eg. the Mac OS Toolbox, the Mac OS X
> Cocoa framework, Gtk, Qt, etc.  The only thing you need from a language,
> is some programmer-friendly FFI to be able to call those libraries
> easily, and you're all set to write big applications.


Yes.  Reva Forth has an easy-to-use FFI, and supports Windows, Linux and
OS/X.  Enough work was put into an "IUP" interface to allow writing GUI
applications (cross-platform) -- though it's a non-ANS Forth.

Win32Forth also has an easy FFI, and so do others.

As far as LISP goes, I've found the multiplicity of parentheses to be
very distracting, but then I never had to write anything beyond a few
macros in it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11418

In comp.lang.forth, Ron Aaron wrote:

> Yes.  Reva Forth has an easy-to-use FFI, and supports Windows, Linux and
> OS/X.  Enough work was put into an "IUP" interface to allow writing GUI
> applications (cross-platform) -- though it's a non-ANS Forth.

It's a pity, actually, that Reva doesn't offer any interface to some GUI
toolkit: could be Tk, FLTK or Fox... full support for curses, for text mode,
also could be nice.
-- 
Forth is a preserver of health (Hippocrates)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11421

On 04/19/2012 09:55 PM, Zbiggy wrote:
> In comp.lang.forth, Ron Aaron wrote:
> 
>> Yes.  Reva Forth has an easy-to-use FFI, and supports Windows, Linux and
>> OS/X.  Enough work was put into an "IUP" interface to allow writing GUI
>> applications (cross-platform) -- though it's a non-ANS Forth.
> 
> It's a pity, actually, that Reva doesn't offer any interface to some GUI
> toolkit: could be Tk, FLTK or Fox... full support for curses, for text mode,
> also could be nice.

"IUP" is a GUI toolkit.

http://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11423

In comp.lang.forth, Ron Aaron wrote:

>> It's a pity, actually, that Reva doesn't offer any interface to some GUI
>> toolkit: could be Tk, FLTK or Fox... full support for curses, for text mode,
>> also could be nice.
>
> "IUP" is a GUI toolkit.
>
> http://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/

There isn't any information about it on main page; there is only, in section
"Related projects":

"The Reva GUI. This is not being actively developed any more, but you may
find it interesting" - which suggests something abandoned.

Besides, on IUP's page, there is a remark: "IUP is a portable toolkit for
building graphical user interfaces. It offers APIs in three basic languages:
C, Lua and LED".

What about Reva?
-- 
Forth is a preserver of health (Hippocrates)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11430

On 04/19/2012 10:47 PM, Zbiggy wrote:

> There isn't any information about it on main page; there is only, in section
> "Related projects":

That is a different, "related" project -- which was abandoned precisely
because IUP is a better (in my opinion) solution for the cross-platform
GUI.  Or more correctly, I couldn't summon up the energy to pursue it
once I realized that IUP would do what I wanted, very well.

I suppose you are right that there is no mention of IUP on the main
page; however there is an abundance of code examples in the package if
you download it.

I don't know what's on the IUP project's page, since I have no
connection to them except to communicate occasionally with their
developers. IUP was developed for Lua by the Lua team, but it works
easily enough with Reva.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web