wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) (10/08/90)
I hate blocks. The are much too restrictive. People tend to omit comments and visual structuring when using blocks, because they don't have the flexibility to easily move stuff around when they have to go back and add something in the middle. I think it is funny when people claim that blocks enforce the discipline of short definitions. This is funny because everything else about Forth tends not to enforce discipline, instead leaving it up to the programmer to choose. I think blocks actually increase the average size of definitions, because you can't easily go back and factor out a plausible subdefinition, due to not having room to add the extra ": name ( xx yy -- zz ) ;" and whatever commentary is appropriate. Mitch
cwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips) (10/11/90)
In article <9010101326.AA20001@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM (Mitch Bradley) writes: > I hate blocks. The are much too restrictive. People tend to omit > comments and visual structuring when using blocks, because they don't > have the flexibility to easily move stuff around when they have to > go back and add something in the middle. > > I think it is funny when people claim that blocks enforce the discipline > of short definitions. This is funny because everything else about Forth > tends not to enforce discipline, instead leaving it up to the programmer > to choose. I saw blocks as a toll, not a discipline.... > > I think blocks actually increase the average size of definitions, because > you can't easily go back and factor out a plausible subdefinition, due > to not having room to add the extra ": name ( xx yy -- zz ) ;" and > whatever commentary is appropriate. > > Mitch But when I used 'em ( 80-82 ) I had to use the discipline of my MBASIC training 8^) ( you know, leave 9 blocks between each one used! ) to avoid the "RENUM BLOCK" phenominon! 8^) |^) 8^) Clyde 8^)
marc@noe.UUCP (Marc de Groot) (10/13/90)
In article <9010101326.AA20001@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Mitch Bradley <wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes: >I hate blocks. The are much too restrictive. People tend to omit >comments and visual structuring when using blocks, because they don't >have the flexibility to easily move stuff around when they have to >go back and add something in the middle. I don't agree. Blocks (like everything else in Forth) require a different approach. The proper approach is, "When adding or factoring code, USE A NEW BLOCK." >I think blocks actually increase the average size of definitions, because >you can't easily go back and factor out a plausible subdefinition, due >to not having room to add the extra ": name ( xx yy -- zz ) ;" and >whatever commentary is appropriate. Again, I don't agree. See above. -- Marc de Groot (KG6KF) |"The all-American boy prefers beauty to brains Noe Systems, San Francisco | because he can see better than he can think." UUCP: uunet!hoptoad!noe!marc | -Farrah Fawcett Internet: marc@kg6kf.AMPR.ORG |