collinge@uvicctr.UUCP (Doug Collinge) (09/28/85)
In article <276@ccivax.UUCP> rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: >I normally avoid getting involved in FORTH discussions, because FORTH >people tend to get a little too religeous. Just mention words like >subroutine threaded code (very fast on a 6809), or 'infix preprocessor' >or even 'object oriented vocabularies', or even binary format files, >and you can be called a heritic and a FIG meeting. No Thanks! I don't ever want to be called "a FIG meeting"! Seriously, before I actually did any coding in Forth I thought screens were really horrible. Now that I have done several large systems in Forth I must say that my remaining complaints are very minor - and perhaps less serious than complaints I would likely have about any practical variable-length file system. The essence of the argument is that Forth definitions really do usually fit on one screen. It is often a little tight for comments which is one of my complaints. If you have a decent screen editor working with screens is really no problem as long as you keep your definitions nice and short. You really are forced to do that because long definitions are really a lot of trouble to comprehend in Forth - or in any language. -- Doug Collinge School of Music, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700, Victoria, B.C., Canada, V8W 2Y2 decvax!nrl-css!uvicctr!collinge decvax!uw-beaver!uvicctr!collinge ubc-vision!uvicctr!collinge