"astrobe" <fdubois76@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:f69d2c0b-5221-4809-b21d-b6a07df6f62b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > FORTH supports structured programming concepts
> >
> > But,
> >
> > FORTH language has almost no structure. It's not much more than an
AST
> > (Abstract Syntax Tree). It lacks visual grouping or a block
structure.
>
> That's very true. Even thinking of it as an AST is more than generous
>
> > FORTH only has a single data type: integer
>
> Indeed, that's a big problem. Types are mandatory; otherwise you have
> to test every single definition.
>
> > FORTH lacks syntax for standard mathematical notation, esp. for
algebraic
> > expressions: a=2+3
>
> Indeed, that's a major problem. No-one can ever get used with RPN.
> Even after ten year of intensive training
>
> > FORTH words (i.e., procedures) are parameterless and don't require
> > expression of the parameters...
>
> We all have problems with that. That's why we have to define 1+, 2*,
> 2+ etc.
>
> > FORTH's low level operations truly are cryptic: .S ! @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>R R> 0= ."
>
> Yes. Fortunately, we don't have -> or & or :: or template class <X>
>
> > FORTH doesn't manage variables, requiring extra work for stack
juggling:
> > DUP, DROP, SWAP, ROT
>
> I disagree here. PICK helps a lot. For instance:
> 2 CONSTANT X
> : FOO .... X PICK .
>
> > FORTH's factoring concept (i.e., separation of concerns ) produces
"wordy
> > sentences" with artificial created words, i.e., difficult to read
> >
>
> Yes. Factoring is the sign that one cannot cope with multi-line
> definitions doing multiple things. I can have coffee and read the
> newspaper afterall. Forth's intensive factoring only leads to call a
> cat "A-CAT" and it' so boring.
>
>
> Rod,
>
> Thanks a lot. You really opened my eyes on the deficiencies of Forth.
> I think someone should close this newsgroup and remove any website on
> the internet, any book on the shelves talking about Forth, in order to
> prevent people from wasting their time by giving it a try. Forth
> advocates should also be sent straight to jail, because these guys
> must be very dangerous for convincing people to use such an awful,
> unusable, dead-born langage.
> As for myself, from now on, I'll give a try only to langages that I
> judge _a priori_ workable and discard any langage that features I
> don't understand/don't know how to use, and won't make any effort to
> try to "get it", as you cleverly do.
>
> > And, if you correct all of those language defects or benefits, you end
up
> > with a single type, interpreted language, called B - the precursor to
C...
> > or, perhaps, a C derivative like interpreted S-lang.
> >
>
> You've seen the light. Thanks for that too. I suggest that the few
> people working on the next standard should follow your advice in order
> to fix Forth. I also suggest Corth as a new name for that new langage.
>
Although your (unlabelled) sarcasm is funny, I wasn't criticizing Forth.
I'm currently trying to use a Forth-like interpreter in a C project. My
response was a serious reply to JD's statement:
> Then why do domain experts find Forth code "unmaintainable" and
> "write-only"? These are not cliches: they represent the actual
> experiences of real people.
I believe those are some of the reasons that Forth is "write-only" to non
Forth users. Since the original discussion was about why Forth is dying
out, I think those reasons are relevant and shouldn't be made fun of,
don't
you? If you poke fun at them, no one takes them seriously even when they
should. But, I was also pointing out to JD that a solution for most of
his
complaints has been developed (I think you missed that...) and is used
extensively: C.
RP
|
