3 ms·

Everything is great, simple, and easy to understand, and then I get to that Snake example and the code is nearly unreadable.

• abecedarius 11y ago
  The Snake code is more complex than it needs to be -- example: defining directions as constants from 1 to 4 and then using IF on the direction, instead of defining directions as offsets in the coordinates. But simpler code would not be that much simpler -- Forth just takes getting used to, and I guess the step up to a whole game was too steep. Add some smaller exercises first? Like Sokoban? (Generally the main thing that'd make Forth more readable is local variables in place of stack manipulations.)
  • to3m 11y ago
    If you really insist on having an enum for your directions, what you could do is something like this: (assuming 2s complement and TRUE being ~0) : DIREQ DIRECTION @ = ; : DELTA DIREQ SWAP DIREQ NEGATE + ; : MOVE-SNAKE-HEAD LEFT RIGHT DELTA SNAKE-X-HEAD +! UP DOWN DELTA SNAKE-Y-HEAD +! ; It's an open question whether this approach is any better but I think it looks a bit more Forthlike, insofar as I have any grasp of what that is. I think having offsets would make more sense - e.g., suppose your playfield is 80 units wide, then you'd have left and right as -1 and +1, and up and down as -80 and +80 (which I assume is what you mean).
  • voltagex_ 11y ago
    Raise an issue about it? https://github.com/skilldrick/easyforth/issues https://github.com/skilldrick/easyforth/issues