RE: [colorforth] abort

[Fréderic DUBOIS <frederic.dubois@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : Mark Slicker [mailto:maslicke@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Envoy=E9 : lun. 2 juin 2003 20:17
> > =C0 : colorforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Objet : Re: [colorforth] abort
> >
[...]

> There apears to be clear tradeoffs between the aproachs. Forth in style
> of Chuck Moore is pushing the limits of the machine, producing code
> which is small, simple, fast and efficient. The consequence is that a
> greater amount of skill is needed by the programmer and the system is more
> fragile. Lisp and Smalltalk seem to pushing the limits of flexibility,
> efficiency takes a back seat.
>
The strategy with these languages is to implement a general solution to
resolve a set of problems.
The Forth way is to solve problems accurately, on a case by case basis.
What disturbs me is that you cannot be sure that this approach will solve
all possible problems. You got to be self-confident to use this approach,
because indeed it requires from us more skills, and not only in Forth.

> The implications for code sharing are unclear to me. I find Forth code

Maybe libraries is another attempt to solve a general problem.

> very reusable but the granularity is much smaller. I reuse ideas in code,
> and sometimes single lines. It is nothing like the verbataim use of code
> common in C environments.
>

I slightly disagree. You can do in C what you do in Forth but it is not as
much convenient because of type checking and prototypes and header files.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: colorforth-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: colorforth-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com