Obtuse, maybe, then again many people say the same of Lisps (and pretty much any Functional language, and APL...). it depends on the objectives of the author and familiarity of the reader.
IMHO The Forth sweet spot has always been near or on the metal; it has an extremely small footprint in those environment and you get a big bang for your few hundred bytes of memory footprint buck. It is less compelling for server rooms and PCs where everyone has gigs of RAM these days. Tom 2009/4/12 fft1976 <fft1...@gmail.com> > > > I find stack languages to be obtuse. Sometimes Forth programmers need > variables, and what they do is usually just mutable some global ones. > Also Forth programmers always have to document what they are doing > with the stack: what arguments are consumed what results are left, > i.e. this is a calling convention "by convention". Why not let the > compiler enforce these rules instead of leaving it up to the comments? > > Basically, applicative languages (like C) are to Forth, what GC is to > malloc/free and what STM is to locks: a huge step forward. > > I don't know what Factor people are doing. It's Forth with dynamic > typing, as far as I know. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
