3 ms·

I find it interesting that I can re-write this paragraph from the article and replace Lisp with Forth and it is still true. "Forth takes a far different and fa

I find it interesting that I can re-write this paragraph from the article and replace Lisp with Forth and it is still true. "Forth takes a far different and far more pragmatic approach. The Forth designers do not assume what syntax, features or functions will be necessary in the future. The developers of Forth give you the full powers that they had to develop the language. You can develop macros for dynamically generating code. Without going into depth about how this mechanism works, a feat that was possible in Forth was the implementation of an object oriented programming system without having to change the compiler!" It still seems to be a challenge to use programmable languages for day-to-day work despite how much fun they make programming for the programmer

Hendrikto 5y ago
> procedural, stack-oriented, Reverse Polish Notation Lisp sounds nicer.
- lebuffon 5y ago
  It has merits for sure. It is higher level out of the box. Forth is low level by design for hardware level coding. However as the paragraph states, both begin at a level X but both do not stay at that level in the hands of one who understands how to use them. When used as designed, one does not program in these languages. You program in the language you create to solve the problem at hand. An example at the extreme end of this idea is CoSY (Armstrong), an APL-like language written in Forth. A small example is a useable OOP extension written in ten lines. (Paysan) My un-spoken point was that two independent language writers (McCarthy & Moore) found that similar ideas, expressed in that paragraph, implemented in radically different ways, improved their coding productivity. It begs the question is their a lesson here for programming? It could be that IRL these concepts just don't work well or that they only suite a small subset of real world problems or a small subset of human brains, but it makes me wonder...

Hendrikto 5y ago

> procedural, stack-oriented, Reverse Polish Notation Lisp sounds nicer.

lebuffon 5y ago
It has merits for sure. It is higher level out of the box. Forth is low level by design for hardware level coding. However as the paragraph states, both begin at a level X but both do not stay at that level in the hands of one who understands how to use them. When used as designed, one does not program in these languages. You program in the language you create to solve the problem at hand. An example at the extreme end of this idea is CoSY (Armstrong), an APL-like language written in Forth. A small example is a useable OOP extension written in ten lines. (Paysan) My un-spoken point was that two independent language writers (McCarthy & Moore) found that similar ideas, expressed in that paragraph, implemented in radically different ways, improved their coding productivity. It begs the question is their a lesson here for programming? It could be that IRL these concepts just don't work well or that they only suite a small subset of real world problems or a small subset of human brains, but it makes me wonder...