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

Bruce McFarling wrote:
>>> Why not Scheme? Lua? Python?
> 
>> Because their fundamental abstractions are too far from the hardware.
> 
> However, for those who prefer Lua as a scripting language, it would be
> nice to have a Lua written in Forth that could be loaded where Forth
> was provided as a scripting language close to the hardware.

Alternatively, one could go the other way-- start with a scripting 
language (like Lua) and implement a Forth in that language.  That Forth 
may generate code as low-level as necessary, down to the native machine 
level.  Done well, definitions in the high-level scripting language and 
definitions in the low-level Forth code can live together peacefully.