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

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #36530

Re: How Forth can be compared?

Show all headers | View raw

visualforth@rocketmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 11:25:56 AM UTC-5, empty-buffers wrote:
>> I found an interesting atricle:
>> http://www.itworld.com/article/2881655/your-code-is-far-more-chaff-than-wheat.html
>> 
>> #v+
>>  If you're a software developer and somebody asked you what percentage of
>>  the code you write represents the actual functionality versus how much
>>  is filler, fluff or code just required by the language to actually run?
>>  95%? 75%? 50%? No matter what you guessed, you're probably way off
>>  because new research has discovered that only about 5% of written code
>>  captures the core functionality it actually provides.
>> #v-
>> 
>> I wonder, how Forth could be scored in such comparison.
>> --
>> "Yes, this is the bad end you've come to, and two and two is - as it
>> always was..." - began Trurl, but just then the machine made a faint,
>> barely audible croaking noise and said, for the last time: "SEVEN".
> 
> Forth is nearly 100% wheat, because Forth is leaving the chuff out by
> definition of the Forth language and by definition of that article:
> 
> "The authors claimed that the wheat of a function could be encapsulated by
> small sets of keywords, which they called the "minimum distinguishing
> subset" or MINSET. The MINSET can be derived by breaking a method down
> into lexemes (i.e., code delimited by space or punctuation), discarding
> what's not important to the behavior of the function and mapping the
> remaining ones to keywords. Those keywords then make up the MINSET."
> 
> It's even better than that!
> 
> With Forth there is nothing not important to the behavior of a function!
> 
> "Forth is the programming language which stripped off all unnecessary
> attachment and distraction leaving pure logic to work with." Quote from
> "Forth for Education - 4E4th and 4E4th IDE", Page 12
> http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/euroforth/ef12/papers/bruehl.pdf
> 
> It's obvious that Phil Johnson doesn't know Forth.
> Does anybody know how to post a comment to this article
> "Your code is far more chaff than wheat" or how to contact Phil Johnson ?
> 
> Phil Johnson wrote a lot of interesting articles, one example:
> "Swift ascends the programming language ranks"
> http://www.itworld.com/author/Phil-Johnson/

If you just dig a little on the web-site you would find his email address is 
<phil_johnson@itworld.com>


-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett IEng MIET.....<email://Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy.............<http://www.hidecs.co.uk>
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 TBA (due to  re-location)
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

How Forth can be compared? empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-12 16:25 +0000
  Re: How Forth can be compared? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-12 11:14 -0800
    Re: How Forth can be compared? empty-buffers <empty.buffersYOU-DONT-WANT-THIS@gmail.NEITHER-THIS.com> - 2015-02-12 20:11 +0000
      Re: How Forth can be compared? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-12 12:35 -0800
        Re: How Forth can be compared? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-12 13:14 -0800
        Re: How Forth can be compared? visualforth@rocketmail.com - 2015-02-12 13:23 -0800
    Re: How Forth can be compared? Paul E Bennett <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2015-02-13 09:05 +0000
  Re: How Forth can be compared? albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2015-02-12 19:38 +0000

csiph-web