I was only half kidding about forth - it is a language I haven't really explored and at some point I want to learn it, and give it a good enough chance that I can form a well educated opinion of the language.
It's my understanding that the good optimizing compilers for forth are commercial. If there were a fast free optimizing compiled forth with good documentation available, I would start experimenting with it. But I don't think there is - it seems to be a commercial language. - Don Ian Osgood wrote: > > On Nov 12, 2007, at 3:59 PM, Don Dailey wrote: > >> How about forth? A lot of the high level languages we are talking >> about essentially get converted to forth (or I should say a "forth type" >> language.) >> >> - Don > > I like Forth. I got excited about UCT around the time of the Computer > Olympiad and wrote a bitmap-based 9x9 program. What is the general > impression on bitmap vs. mailbox board representations for Monte Carlo > readouts? > > http://www.quirkster.com/iano/forth/fgp.html > > It is not yet very fast, mostly due to unoptimized code, partly due to > using a direct-threaded Forth (gforth) instead of a compiled version. > > One nice thing about the dictionary-based memory allocation used by > the UCT breadth-first search: the entire search is deallocated at once > by resetting the dictionary pointer. > > Ian > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
