> 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.
=A0My=
> 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.
>
Ok, I overlooked that. At some point I wondered if you were just
trolling, but it wasn't you.
> I believe those are some of the reasons that Forth is "write-only" to
non
> Forth users.
Just as Lisp, APL, and any langage that takes a different approach;
those langage are like foreign langages, unreadable and therefore
"write-only" if one doesn't master it.
>=A0Since 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?
Well, I don't. I wouldn't care to be the last for user; it just works
for me, it doesn't work for everyone. A community is nice because you
can get help from it, but a (large) community isn't mandatory for
Forth. So I don't make too much efforts to promote Forth. I may point
it out to people on occasion, then they get it or or not.
>=A0If you poke fun at them, no one takes them seriously even when they
> should.
For most of them, it is just a matter of good practice. Learning Forth
is quite easy, using it the right way is a bit harder.
> 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.
>
I rarely miss C...
BTW X is not a good advice because it is a compiled language. If you
really want him to leave us alone, you should point to him a seducing
interpreted language like Lua for instance.
Amicalement,
Astrobe
|
