Talk About Network



Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Programming > Forth > Re: The strengt...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 7 of 71 Topic 3977 of 4053
Post > Topic >>

Re: The strengths of FORTH

by "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mar 27, 2008 at 11:21 PM

Robert Miller wrote:

[%X]

> This provided a fairly immediate means of trying new code.  The lengthy
> and too often repeated sequence of edit - compile/assemble - link -
> download - and test is eliminated. (If you have ever worked with a
> paper tape based machine that can be a very lengthy sequence.) This
> encourages bottom up implementation with testing of the code
> almost concurrent with its creation.  The result is the next layer is
> built on (hopefully well) tested code.  In the final analysis this
> process results in reliable, working code being created quite quickly. 
> An incremental compiler such as FORTH provides the same advantage
> without the interpreter's overhead.

For the even older hands, paper tape might have seemed like a luxury. One
system I have brought up involved 4k of machine code entered on switches
and latched into the memory locations (ran for 25 years with no errors). 
 
[%X]

> Although extensibility is not a big issue for my application, it is a
> powerful tool for anyone who needs it.  I have done quite a bit of
> (admittedly boringly linear) work using C/C++ and I haven't encountered
> anything like DOES>.  If you want OOP, it would seem that you could add
> it. (How about an OOP word set in the next standard?) If you haven't
> time to add badly needed OOP to your FORTH , use C++ or some other
> language.

I have always thought that only the CORE of Forth requires to be the
rigidly specified part of standard with all the other extension wordsets
being documented as a flavour of extension. That way you could declare
in your documentation of a standard program that it used "Pountain
OOP", "Charlton String Matching" and your own app specific tweaks.

-- 
********************************************************************
Paul E. Bennett...............<email://Paul_E.Bennett@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Forth based HIDECS Consultancy
Mob: +44 (0)7811-639972
Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095
Going Forth Safely ..... EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..
********************************************************************




 71 Posts in Topic:
The strengths of FORTH
"Robert Miller"  2008-03-27 15:01:14 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Jonah Thomas <jethomas  2008-03-27 18:47:44 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-03-27 18:46:42 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-03-28 09:30:44 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
mhx@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (M  2008-03-28 19:21:30 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-03-28 12:06:51 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
"Paul E. Bennett&quo  2008-03-27 23:21:10 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Brad Eckert <nospaambr  2008-03-27 19:03:48 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Jonah Thomas <jethomas  2008-03-27 22:15:25 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Benny Andersen <a.mail  2008-03-28 09:59:05 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
"dkelvey@[EMAIL PROT  2008-03-28 07:50:09 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
John Doty <jpd@[EMAIL   2008-03-28 09:25:07 
Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
anton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-03-28 20:33:46 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-03-28 09:42:22 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Reinhold Straub <demar  2008-03-29 04:48:43 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
William James <w_a_x_m  2008-03-29 12:00:12 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Reinhold Straub <demar  2008-03-30 05:59:03 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
m_l_g3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-02 01:04:50 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
"Stephan Becher"  2008-04-07 09:46:32 
Re: Type checking
"David N. Williams&q  2008-04-07 12:20:20 
Re: Type checking
"Stephan Becher"  2008-04-07 17:30:08 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Trey Boudreau <trey@[E  2008-04-07 10:07:45 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bernd Paysan <bernd.pa  2008-04-07 18:32:48 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Trey Boudreau <trey@[E  2008-04-07 16:46:00 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
"Stephan Becher"  2008-04-08 08:01:23 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bernd Paysan <bernd.pa  2008-04-08 10:16:55 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
kenney@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-09 06:17:26 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-04-09 07:39:32 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
"Mark W. Humphries&q  2008-04-09 09:08:39 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bernd Paysan <bernd.pa  2008-04-09 18:26:48 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Doug Hoffman <no.spam&  2008-04-09 17:07:45 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Albert van der Horst <  2008-04-10 03:49:42 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Doug Hoffman <no.spam&  2008-04-10 06:01:45 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Albert van der Horst <  2008-04-10 21:47:04 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-04-09 09:19:33 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
John Doty <jpd@[EMAIL   2008-05-01 21:35:15 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
m_l_g3 <m_l_g3@[EMAIL   2008-04-17 17:27:21 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
anton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-08 14:14:30 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-04-08 07:18:34 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
"Stephan Becher"  2008-04-09 08:49:44 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-04-08 07:29:56 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-04-09 07:37:06 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
"Stephan Becher"  2008-04-10 08:04:57 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
m_l_g3 <m_l_g3@[EMAIL   2008-04-09 17:48:14 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
"Stephan Becher"  2008-04-10 07:54:14 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Albert van der Horst <  2008-04-10 21:27:21 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-04-10 03:30:01 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
m_l_g3 <m_l_g3@[EMAIL   2008-04-10 04:16:59 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
"Stephan Becher"  2008-04-10 18:53:37 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
m_l_g3 <m_l_g3@[EMAIL   2008-04-10 04:48:57 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
m_l_g3 <m_l_g3@[EMAIL   2008-04-11 05:02:01 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Bruce McFarling <agila  2008-04-11 08:37:46 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Mikael Nordman <oh2aun  2008-03-28 19:41:15 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Albert van der Horst <  2008-03-28 22:26:26 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
"Robert Miller"  2008-03-29 00:19:04 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Mikael Nordman <oh2aun  2008-03-29 09:56:25 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Aleksej Saushev <asau@  2008-04-01 23:35:18 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Mikael Nordman <oh2aun  2008-04-02 18:39:30 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Aleksej Saushev <asau@  2008-04-06 18:48:28 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Brad Eckert <nospaambr  2008-04-04 09:29:12 
Re: The strengths of FORTH / OT: SMT soldering
"Robert Miller"  2008-04-04 15:28:47 
Re: The strengths of FORTH / OT: SMT soldering
John Doty <jpd@[EMAIL   2008-04-04 13:51:24 
Re: The strengths of FORTH / OT: SMT soldering
Brad Eckert <nospaambr  2008-04-04 16:46:08 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
William James <w_a_x_m  2008-03-29 11:42:17 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
"Robert Miller"  2008-03-29 17:56:46 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Andrew Haley <andrew29  2008-03-30 10:03:42 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Albert van der Horst <  2008-03-30 15:10:11 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Guy Macon <http://www.  2008-03-30 09:54:09 
Re: The strengths of FORTH
Jonah Thomas <jethomas  2008-03-30 09:59:30 
Re: The strengths of FORTH / OT: SMT soldering
spam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-04-05 13:49:18 
Re: Type checking (was: The strengths of FORTH)
Jonah Thomas <jethomas  2008-04-08 07:22:41 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Fri May 16 2:21:32 CDT 2008.