> [...] parameter-passing bugs [...] Ah, yeah, incremental development is the panacea here. > [...] Factor (or PostScript) [...] Yeah, agreed; if you're need

> [...] parameter-passing bugs [...] Ah, yeah, incremental development is the panacea here. > [...] Factor (or PostScript) [...] Yeah, agreed; if you're needing to be able to safely execute untrusted code though, I'd rather have a language with trustworthy properties (i.e. one restricting one from making arbitrary syscalls, arbitrary pointer reads+writes, etc.) rather than applying sandboxing to a language that allows the program to do all these unsafe operations. > [...] leap from machine code [...] Agreed :) > [...] prefer to type [...] Yeah, I haven't found a syntax for reading math that's better than infix; I don't actually think the postfix is much better than prefix, but maybe that's just me. > [...] RPN syntax [...] Oh, I actually think it does; it emphasizes function composition directly, and unifies it with sequencing statements in a single syntax! > [...] formal methods [...] Yeah, especially given the diversity of techniques under the formal methods banner, it's hard to get a good look at "the whole landscape." I think symbolic execution is getting to the point where it's workable for testing with a similar UX to property testing, just slower but with stronger guarantees (since all possible executions are taken, not just the ones that the RNG finds). Haven't actually built it yet though, so maybe Forth's flexibility will make it too hard, who knows. If you wanna chat more about these things, I and at least one other person looking into formal methods + Forth hang out on #forth on Freenode.