Jonah Thomas wrote:
>
> m-coughlin <m-coughlin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
<snip>
> I suspect that languages are write-only more because they lack
> names for local variables or intermediate results that because
> they have unusual characters representing functions. I mean,
> who would want to write out "iota" or "rho" every time you
> wanted an array? :-) :-)
> ----
I would. Forth has every word you need to write clear
listings. It is (
<snip>
> An old comp.lang.forth topic where you said roughly the same
> things you're saying now and I responded pretty much the same.
> ho hum.
> Here's Bernd's response to you, which I thought was excellent:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/msg/aa20040e2d763089
>
Wow, you can find things I wrote seven years ago! I try not
repeat myself too much, but there are more people reading
comp.lang.forth now than there were then so I'll take the
chance. Bernd Paysan has the same attitude towards comments as
the people I learned programming from in the days of punch
cards. Along about twenty five years ago, I noticed a change
among some in the programming business to stress better
commenting and documentation. I thought this was a big
improvement. Bernd probably does not. Everyone is entitled to
his own opinion.
> > I have
> > not been able to convince any Forth programmer that Forth's
> > commenting style needs to be improved either.
>
> Many Forth programmers have experimented with new commenting
> styles. Where are you continuing to see Forth code that's badly
> commented?
Everywhere I look.
> How many lines of poorly-commented Forth code have
> you seen that were written since you failed to convince us to
> comment better?
Remember I would like to see Forth used more than it is now.
Better you should ask "Where have I seen any Forth code that I
would dare show to those who say Forth is a write only
language?" There is a little bit here and there. The popular
wa****ng machine example is almost one.
--
Michael Coughlin m-coughlin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cambridge, MA USA
