Re: advantages of forth over other languages

slava@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 schrieb:
> On Oct 3, 7:41 pm, Andreas Klimas <kli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> adavantage or disadvantage is only in the eye of the beholder.
>> one migh argue that the most im****tant feature is to have a
>> garbage collecter. I was one of them. but GC is not a general
>> solution. because now you have to manage carefully your references
>> otherwise all objects hold on one. and it could be extreme
>> difficult to find this object. well, you might implement caching
>> for database object but you wouldn't that those object would
>> in memory all the time. such requirement are the reason why weak
>> references were introduced - you see.
> 
> I don't see how any of this is connected with having a GC. Whether you
> have GC or not, you still have to think carefully about object
> lifecycle, and who references who.

it's near impossible if you are using foreign frameworks to
predict where references of your objects were keept. we had
a couple of troubles with some Smalltalk peristent frameworks.
Java isn't better.

> The difference is that GC
> eliminates boilerplate code.

IMHO: no

> 
> Can you point me at some web frameworks and web applications written
> in Forth which are used in production?

content management system.
www.cmslight.eu, it's german.

there are other applications as well, but it's pointless without
login and password.

might I should write a tutorial and post it to this
newsgroup.

> 
>> don't forget to compare the price for those features compared to
>> other languages. how expensive is lexical scoping in lisp, compared to
>> forth, where you simply use the stack.
> 
> Both Lisp and Forth implementations can achieve very good performance
> close to that of C. Many techniques exist to optimize lexical scope
> and closures -- there has been extensive research on this topic since
> the 70's.

I counted 250000 LOC in src directory.

best wishes
Andreas Klimas