Re: The strengths of FORTH

On Mar 29, 5:48 am, Reinhold Straub <demarc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> John Doty wrote:
> > dkel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >  One of the complaints I see often is the lack
> > > of type checking.
> > >  I can't recall when I had an error in my code
> > > related to incorrect use of type. Still, it is
> > > considered a major problem with Forth?
>
> > The issue isn't errors, which generally don't survive the first
> > interactive test. The issue is vocabulary bloat and user confusion.
>
> Instead of type checking and operator overloading the Forth syntax has
> flection like English ("love", "loves", "loved") or rather
> agglutination of modifiers: @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 df@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 d+ etc.
>
> So Forth is closer to natural languages here than to mathematics.

No, it isn't.

I see the apple.
I see the lettuce.
I see the cobalt
I see the dog.

One doesn't say
I fruit-see the apple.
I vegetable-see the lettuce.
I element-see the cobalt.
I mammal-see the dog.

unless he is using Forth.

> Since flection is mostly done by word endings in natural languages, it
> perhaps would have been better to write @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 +d etc.
>
> This doesn't mean "vocabulary bloat" at all.

Yes, it does.

>
> Please compare:
> C: int float +   \ 2 type words, 1 operator word
> Forth: + f+     \ 1 type modifier, 1 operator word

Compare
  int long float +  -   *   /
to
  +   -    *     /  d+  d-  d*  d/  f+  f-  f*  f/

>
> In Forth the data type is always visible from the operator form
> whereas in typed languages the data types can be hidden from the
> reader (e.g. "a = c + b;"

Information hiding is essential for efficient programming.