3 ms·
> See, that's the problem. Writing a Forth interpreter, to be blunt, is not writing in Forth. You should be writing applications in Forth, not interpreters. It'
by macintux 5y ago
> See, that's the problem. Writing a Forth interpreter, to be blunt, is not writing in Forth. You should be writing applications in Forth, not interpreters. It's great to marvel at the simplicity of a Forth interpreter, until you have to use it in anger for an actual application.
I get the impression Chuck Moore would argue "writing in Forth" means designing a custom language and custom hardware in tandem.
- whartung 5y agoForth is one of those systems that blurs the distinction between Application and Language. In truth you push your Application down in to "Forthisms" while uplifting Forth in to your "Applicationisms" and, eventually, like trains in the desert, they meet somewhere in the middle.
- vram22 5y agoSimilar to what Paul Graham wrote about top down and bottom up programming (IIRC, in Lisp), in one of his essays.