Forth is outdated and obsolete 
Author Message
 Forth is outdated and obsolete

 Hmmmm....
   An interesting concept....
   However, I point out that many have claimed Forth "A dead
language" yet I still perform amazing feats in it that have others
falling over their shoe-tops just to define structures!
   So, if you'll forgive me, I *remain* a language snob, aimed at the
concept that "less is better" ala Dr. Dobb's Journal which was a
major influence in my micro-computer life. To this, I see C, Turbo
C, C++, as major hogs that have no idea what they're doing, and
Windows and all its great little "dittys" as nothing more than a way
to slow down your 4/586 to an a standard XT....
  That philosophy reminds me "Utopia Thru Science" proposed in the
late 50's which we're just now discovering the price tag of it....
It don't fly!

   Just for the record, *I* still produce applications in Forth that
run in 1/8 the space, in 1/5 the time for 1/3 the investment of the
client and rarely -- rarely -- do I let them know how! In my case,
Forth is the best kept secret on the hill!! (Though I do tend to
stay *MIGHTY* close to the target machine -- good business is REPEAT
business!)

--
via Fortress Gateway at uumind.mind.ORG



Sat, 21 Oct 1995 17:36:00 GMT  
 Forth is outdated and obsolete

Quote:

> Hmmmm....
>   An interesting concept....
>   However, I point out that many have claimed Forth "A dead
>language" yet I still perform amazing feats in it that have others
>falling over their shoe-tops just to define structures!
>   So, if you'll forgive me, I *remain* a language snob, aimed at the
>concept that "less is better" ala Dr. Dobb's Journal which was a
>major influence in my micro-computer life. To this, I see C, Turbo
>C, C++, as major hogs that have no idea what they're doing, and
>Windows and all its great little "dittys" as nothing more than a way
>to slow down your 4/586 to an a standard XT....
>  That philosophy reminds me "Utopia Thru Science" proposed in the
>late 50's which we're just now discovering the price tag of it....
>It don't fly!

>   Just for the record, *I* still produce applications in Forth that
>run in 1/8 the space, in 1/5 the time for 1/3 the investment of the
>client and rarely -- rarely -- do I let them know how! In my case,
>Forth is the best kept secret on the hill!! (Though I do tend to
>stay *MIGHTY* close to the target machine -- good business is REPEAT
>business!)
>--
>via Fortress Gateway at uumind.mind.ORG

keep on dreaming...


Wed, 25 Oct 1995 13:37:44 GMT  
 Forth is outdated and obsolete

Quote:

>>   Just for the record, *I* still produce applications in Forth that
>>run in 1/8 the space, in 1/5 the time for 1/3 the investment of the
>>client and rarely -- rarely -- do I let them know how! In my case,
>>Forth is the best kept secret on the hill!! (Though I do tend to
>>stay *MIGHTY* close to the target machine -- good business is REPEAT
>>business!)
>>--
>>via Fortress Gateway at uumind.mind.ORG
>keep on dreaming...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't be so #(**& sure of yourself.  I'm a C++/C programmer(albeit only a
university student type one) .  I really like
programming in C++, but I also do a bit with forth... and in fact outside
of my studdies, I am working writing software for a small chip application.
I am glad I did it in forth.  I think that it is more effecient.  I couldn't
have done it in the same way with C or C++ NO WAY.  It would have taken
longer too.  C++ and C have great portability advantages, and popularity
advantages... but that isn't everything.. look at OS/2 vs DOS&WINDOS..
OS/2 is an operating system (as apposed to DOS ).  The majority aren't alays
right.

Michael Geddes



Tue, 31 Oct 1995 12:09:48 GMT  
 Forth is outdated and obsolete

Quote:
> I am glad I did it in forth.  I think that it is more effecient.  I couldn't
> have done it in the same way with C or C++ NO WAY.  It would have taken
> longer too.

I just came accross a situation where I wished I was working in Forth and
not C. I've received this X.25 packet, and I've checked that it's at
least 3 bytes long and the Logical Channel is assigned and... I come
into a function with half-a-dozen arguments on the stack. Depending
on the state of the call and the type of the packet, I want to go on
to call another function _with virtually the same arguments_. Result:
they all get pushed onto the stack _again_, and a whole load of
context gets saved... whereas in Forth I could have left everything on
the stack and passed it on to the next word.

(Yes I know there are ways around this in C, there always is :] - but all
the ways I can think of are distinctly unaesthetic).
__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________
A closed mouth catches no feet



Tue, 31 Oct 1995 23:21:55 GMT  
 
 [ 4 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Forth is outdated and obsolete

2. Am I missing something in forth!

3. I am new to Forth

4. i am new to forth

5. I am new to forth

6. I am new to forth

7. Repost: I am new to forth (found in comp.lang.c)

8. Outdated APL symbols ?

9. MVC outdated?

10. - finding outdated packages

11. Help: Is CLIPPER outdated?

12. Infoworld: COBOL outdated and losing support

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software