On Mar 11, 12:42 pm, gavino <gavcom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 8:40 am, Bernd Paysan <bernd.pay...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Duke Normandin wrote:
> > > If Forth had succeeded instead of MSDOS/Windows and maybe even
Unices,
> > > what would the personal computer environment look like today? Do you
think
> > > that Forth could have brought us to what we enjoy and take for
granted
> > > today?
>
> > Of course. Look at the WIMP GUI: This comes from Smalltalk. Smalltalk
is a
> > fringe language like Forth, today's WIMP GUIs are done in today's
> > mainstream languages. And you can do WIMP GUIs completely in Forth,
too -
> > with the typical advantages of Forth.
>
> > > Maybe it just the nature of the beast - allowing it to excel in
> > > small, finite projects?
>
> > You get it the wrong way round. Forth projects are small and finite,
because
> > a small team gets the project done in a finite time. Similar projects
done
> > by large teams in mainstream languages can take forever.
>
> > > Maybe there are just too many Forths - each one
> > > capable of doing an excellent job in Forth's niche, however
incompatible
> > > with each other?
>
> > Forth was always way too easy to implement (at least badly). I've met
> > several people during my career who had implemented a Forth, but not
done
> > much with it later. Most of them never had even looked at other
Forths,
> > they just got the idea (e.g. from reading Starting Forth) and decided
to
> > build their own Forth (in another language, of course, since if you
don't
> > have your own Forth ready, you can't do it in Forth ;-).
I think bigForth with MINOS would have that.
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/theseus.png
|
