Re: part 21 asserts forth best for small memory systems, would lisp be

gavino wrote:
> 
> http://www.mpeforth.com/arena/ProgramForth.pdf
 section 21
> 
> I know I should stop theorizing but wouldn't it make sense that
> something good in small memory systems would do really well
> with lots of memory EG modern intel commodity hardware?

   Its not the size of the computer memory that matters, its the
size of the human memory. The first Forth book worth reading
("Starting Forth" by Leo Brodie) has examples of using Forth in
small memory. The book about using Forth in large systems has
yet to be written. Programmers who write large Forth systems
will not publish their code for others to use. Its MUCH more
difficult to write Forth source for others to read than to just
write it for yourself when you remember what all your Forth
words do. The problem of knowing and remembering what other
programmers have done is the crucial step. Users of some other
languages are better at solving this than users of Forth, even
tho they don't do it very well.
 
> Or do things like lisp have garbage collection etc( he
> mentions) that make it simpler [than] forth for non memory
> thin hardware?

   Garbage collection is used in Lisp because of the way the
programmer interactively creates and discards data in memory.
Other methods of programming would not need garbage collection.
With Forth you can use any idea from any programming system if
you have enough memory (human or computer). You just have to
write the routines. Forth does not come with every possible way
of programming to start with. We haven't found the right things
to add to old fa****oned Forth that every Forth programmer would
want to use.

--
Michael Coughlin   m-coughlin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Cambridge, MA USA