Re: Is interpret/compile the wrong distinction?

Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <J_ydnaWvcqwNtnranZ2dnUVZ_tKinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> John Doty  <jpd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Albert van der Horst wrote:
>>> In article
<73d33a07-13a2-4527-b437-bb5ea8cd830f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> pablo reda  <pabloreda@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> But usually people who build always-compile systems accept less
>>>>> functionality.
>>>> I disagree with this
>>>> can explain an example of missfunctionality of a always-compiler
>>>> system ?
>>>>
>>>> colorforth is a always-compile system for you ?
>>> It is. And it misses the functionality of a calculator.
>>>
>>> 1 2 + .
>>>
>>> doesn't work in colorforth in any color.
>>> (If I'm not mistaken, but at least I couldn't find out
>>> how to do it.)
>> I use my compile-only LSE64 as a calculator very frequently. Works
fine:
>>
>> LSE> 1 2 + ,
>> 3
>> LSE>
>>
>> It's especially handy for mixing decimal and hex.
> 
> Using my Forth as a calculator under windows (for doing time sheets
etc.)
> Quite recently I discovered the point about the dot.
> 
> The dot is on the numeric keypad such that you can use a calculator
> without lifting the hand from the keypad.
> 
> Have you changed that to a comma, or is that a typo?

I didn't change it: that's what it was in Goeke's original LSE. I don't 
know whether he changed it from STOIC, or whether Sachs changed it: I 
lost my STOIC manual decades ago, and I don't remember little details 
like that.

-- 
John Doty, Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
--
History teaches that logical consistency is neither sufficient nor 
necessary to establish practical, real world truth. Those who attempt to 
use logic for that purpose are abusing it.