3 ms·

Nope. Wrong again. Writing a browser isn't the right fit for Forth. Could you? Sure. Should you? Nope. Forth is great to develop with but comes with liabilit

Nope. Wrong again. Writing a browser isn't the right fit for Forth. Could you? Sure. Should you? Nope. Forth is great to develop with but comes with liabilities if used on the wrong project. I remember a product a friend of mine did using Forth. High end embedded system with custom hardware all selling for tens of thousands of dollars per unit. When he started to look into selling the business Forth became a liability. Nothing wrong with it. Te code worked well and was mostly bug-free. The company bidding to acquire his business did not do Forth and saw it as an impediment. They, like a million others, did C. Ultimately he sold the company for $16 million with a requirement to translate the code base to C under contract. Today I use C for any time I need to do embedded work. Having a foundation in a diverse range of languages means that you tend to use a language like C as a toolset to create an efficient development environment through domain specific libraries, data structures and data representation. I rarely find the need to get down to Forth these days. It made a lot of sense with 8 bit resource-restricted microprocessors. Today you can have a 16 or 32 bit embedded processor for a few bucks and have it run at 25, 50 or 100MHz. Different game.

kragen 14y ago
I'm still skeptical about this "many orders of magnitude" nonsense. Even on an 8-bit resource-restricted microprocessor, what could you write with Forth in a day that would take half a century with a team of 60 people in assembly? Or what could you write with Forth in ten minutes that would take you 60 years in assembly? I think you're talking nonsense and being condescending to try to cover it up. And if almost all projects are "the wrong project" for Forth (which seems to be what you're saying, although I don't agree with it) then does it make sense to compare it to a general-purpose language like assembly? You make it sound like a DSL like SQL, not like a framework for all DSLs.
- robomartin 14y ago
  You know. You are right. I don't know what I am talking about. Thanks for helping me sort that out. Good day.
  - kragen 14y ago
    I'm not accusing you of ignorance; I'm accusing you of talking nonsense, which is to say, writing a bunch of bullshit without regard to whether it's true or false. I'm sure you know perfectly well that you're talking nonsense, as does anybody else who's read this thread, and that's why you're responding with this kind of diversionary aggressive bluster. But I find it disappointing, and I wish you'd engage the conversation at a rational level instead of bullshitting and sarcasm. It's a missed opportunity to share your knowledge — not with me, but with whoever else reads the thread in the future.
    - robomartin 14y ago
      "I'm sure you know perfecly well that you are talking nonsense, as does anybody else who's reading this thread" How do you expect me to answer something like that? You don't know the language and are intent on having an argument with me about this? When Forth is used correctly productivity gains become exponential (the limit being application dependent). So, yes, when used correctly you can go 10, 100 and even 1,000 times faster than assembler. A good comparison would be to look at the productivity gains had when writing raw Python vs using a library such as SciPy. The productivity gains are orders of magnitude greater than the raw language. And, even raw python is orders of magnitude faster than writing assembler. What I said was that [Forth] "It's just above assembler yet many orders of magnitude faster to develop with." and you seem to think this is nonsense. Well, you are wrong. What else do you want me to say. Go learn the language and we can have a conversation. Using it casually doesn't produce the same level of understanding you get from dedicated non-trivial usage. This is true of any language or technology. I am not insulting or diminishing you. Perhaps you are taking it that way. Relax. It's OK to not know everything, I certainly don't and I've been designing electronics and writing software for a long time. Here's a place to start: http://www.ultratechnology.com/forth.htm http://www.ultratechnology.com/forth.htm Here's a good Q&A: http://www.inventio.co.uk/forthvsc.htm http://www.inventio.co.uk/forthvsc.htm If I have the time later tonight I might post a follow-up with an example of what development flow might be for, say, developing code for a multi-axis CNC machine.
      - 14y ago

kragen 14y ago

I'm still skeptical about this "many orders of magnitude" nonsense. Even on an 8-bit resource-restricted microprocessor, what could you write with Forth in a day that would take half a century with a team of 60 people in assembly? Or what could you write with Forth in ten minutes that would take you 60 years in assembly? I think you're talking nonsense and being condescending to try to cover it up. And if almost all projects are "the wrong project" for Forth (which seems to be what you're saying, although I don't agree with it) then does it make sense to compare it to a general-purpose language like assembly? You make it sound like a DSL like SQL, not like a framework for all DSLs.

robomartin 14y ago
You know. You are right. I don't know what I am talking about. Thanks for helping me sort that out. Good day.
- kragen 14y ago
  I'm not accusing you of ignorance; I'm accusing you of talking nonsense, which is to say, writing a bunch of bullshit without regard to whether it's true or false. I'm sure you know perfectly well that you're talking nonsense, as does anybody else who's read this thread, and that's why you're responding with this kind of diversionary aggressive bluster. But I find it disappointing, and I wish you'd engage the conversation at a rational level instead of bullshitting and sarcasm. It's a missed opportunity to share your knowledge — not with me, but with whoever else reads the thread in the future.
  - robomartin 14y ago
    "I'm sure you know perfecly well that you are talking nonsense, as does anybody else who's reading this thread" How do you expect me to answer something like that? You don't know the language and are intent on having an argument with me about this? When Forth is used correctly productivity gains become exponential (the limit being application dependent). So, yes, when used correctly you can go 10, 100 and even 1,000 times faster than assembler. A good comparison would be to look at the productivity gains had when writing raw Python vs using a library such as SciPy. The productivity gains are orders of magnitude greater than the raw language. And, even raw python is orders of magnitude faster than writing assembler. What I said was that [Forth] "It's just above assembler yet many orders of magnitude faster to develop with." and you seem to think this is nonsense. Well, you are wrong. What else do you want me to say. Go learn the language and we can have a conversation. Using it casually doesn't produce the same level of understanding you get from dedicated non-trivial usage. This is true of any language or technology. I am not insulting or diminishing you. Perhaps you are taking it that way. Relax. It's OK to not know everything, I certainly don't and I've been designing electronics and writing software for a long time. Here's a place to start: http://www.ultratechnology.com/forth.htm http://www.ultratechnology.com/forth.htm Here's a good Q&A: http://www.inventio.co.uk/forthvsc.htm http://www.inventio.co.uk/forthvsc.htm If I have the time later tonight I might post a follow-up with an example of what development flow might be for, say, developing code for a multi-axis CNC machine.
    - 14y ago