Re: The Promise of Forth

On Mar 23, 1:56 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> simpler, programming in Forth is like solving a Rubik's cube, you're
> handling details the compiler could do better and it costs you in
> efficiency.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> But a large Forth team is if anything more likely to write redundant
> code because they're likely to produce faster. To avoid that it would
> be necessary for all of them (or all but one) to know what everybody
> else is doing.

As for the Rubik's cube analogy I find it odd that
so many people have the same reaction. Programming
is not my first occupation, probably not even my
twelfth, but I have translated C manuals and looked
at other languages, and I know that Forth is the
simplest for me.

As for the problem of redundancy, I think Forth makes
it fairly easy to write words that find redundancies
in files of Forth code. I did that in a small way a
long time ago, and I'm not Babbage. Large-scale
project management software for Forth must already
exist.