4 ms·

Im curious - what is it about forth that makes you consider it to map more closely to the machine? I've done a handful of forth projects as part of a code-dojo

• domust 3y ago
  It's fortran, not forth.
  • monocasa 3y ago
    They're talking about forth, not Fortran.
    • augustk 3y ago
      Someone should make a Forthran (I wonder what it would look like though).
• creshal 3y ago
  Forth is easy to make custom hardware for, even if it's a poor fit for the commonly available hardware architectures. RPN + Stack lends itself to a very simple implementation (no registers needed, easy layouting, etc.).
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• somat 3y ago
  Fort is strange, it requires a virtual forth machine to run(I have heard of hardware that runs forth directly but it is exotic), this should automatically exclude it from the low level camp. however this machine ends up almost trivial to write and is very simple. so once you start writing forth it feels low level, like there is very little between you and the cpu. As a consequence, just like assembly, forth people tend to reinvent the world. Note that I am not far in the forth rabbit hole at all, any interest I may show is incidental, a side effect of my interest in postscript, which is very much a high level language.