4 ms·

The reason I don't like building a Forth as an introduction to Forth is because it has you stop at the lowest level of abstraction a typical Forth program is wr

The reason I don't like building a Forth as an introduction to Forth is because it has you stop at the lowest level of abstraction a typical Forth program is written in. Forth is all about building layers of abstraction for yourself. If you're marching toward implementing a system with a set of words others have written about then you aren't really getting the practice in building your own abstractions that help writing Forth applications. It's why a lot of the Forth community laughs that most people come, write a Forth, then leave. A real Forth application can get quite high-level but it's up to you and your collaborators to design that tower of abstraction. I prefer a different approach myself. Start by writing small scripts, stuff that you've already written in other languages, in a full-featured Forth like Gforth. Once you feel comfortable doing that, start building small applications in Forth. Eventually, write bigger applications in Forth. Only shrink your base Forth vocabulary once you feel comfortable in a full-featured Forth like Gforth.

int_19h 5y ago
Problem is, there's not much point in writing high-level Forth - there are much better options out there for that.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  It depends on what you're looking for. If you think of Forth as just a macro-assembler that's easy to get started with, then you're going to just use Forth as a way to bring-up a system and leave. If you think of Forth as a way to build a custom DSL around essential complexity, then you'll be comfortable taking it as high as you'd like. I know most people, especially the types of folks who experiment with languages, view Forth as the former (especially since a lot of these folks are either interested in something high-level like Lisp or with more static assurance like an ML derivative), but if you want to actually see where Forth shines, then you need to actually write high level code in it.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    But, again, if you think Forth as a way to build a custom DSL, why wouldn't you use Lisp instead, which has a lot more to offer in that department to begin with? OTOH Forth as a universal macro assembler is essentially a unique niche where it not only fits surprisingly well, but it's also obvious as soon as you start using it in that capacity.

int_19h 5y ago

Problem is, there's not much point in writing high-level Forth - there are much better options out there for that.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
It depends on what you're looking for. If you think of Forth as just a macro-assembler that's easy to get started with, then you're going to just use Forth as a way to bring-up a system and leave. If you think of Forth as a way to build a custom DSL around essential complexity, then you'll be comfortable taking it as high as you'd like. I know most people, especially the types of folks who experiment with languages, view Forth as the former (especially since a lot of these folks are either interested in something high-level like Lisp or with more static assurance like an ML derivative), but if you want to actually see where Forth shines, then you need to actually write high level code in it.
- int_19h 5y ago
  But, again, if you think Forth as a way to build a custom DSL, why wouldn't you use Lisp instead, which has a lot more to offer in that department to begin with? OTOH Forth as a universal macro assembler is essentially a unique niche where it not only fits surprisingly well, but it's also obvious as soon as you start using it in that capacity.