marc@noe.UUCP (Marc de Groot) (01/08/90)
In article <3084@plains.UUCP> overby@plains.UUCP (Glen Overby) writes: >So why don't academics use Forth? Well, it doesn't *come with* things like >data structures (or something that resembles a Pascal record or C struct). >Forth also doesn't have some facility for Object Oriented Programming *built >in*. Yes, half of OOP is how you actually write the program, but Forth >doesn't have anything to FORCE you to do things a certain way. Thats good >and bad (the same can be said about C). Yup. Forth requires another way of thinking about programming. Nothing in Forth is cast in stone, which is frightening to programmers who expect that. It takes a *long* time to get used to the fact that you can do it yourself; just 'cuz it ain't supplied don't mean you can't have it. Another way in which one's thinking about programming needs to change: the reserved word set in other languages fixed, and is easily committed to memory. One needs to develop different memory skills to remember word names when those names are used the way the reserved word set is used in other languages. ^M -- Marc de Groot (KG6KF) |"...few people know what to do with a computer. Noe Systems, San Francisco | They decide that running an operating system UUCP: uunet!hoptoad!noe!marc | is a substitute for doing productive work." Internet: marc@kg6kf.AMPR.ORG | -Chuck Moore
dwp@willett.UUCP (Doug Philips) (01/10/90)
In article <756@noe.UUCP>, Marc de Groot writes: >Another way in which one's thinking about programming needs to change: >the reserved word set in other languages fixed, and is easily committed >to memory. One needs to develop different memory skills to remember word >names when those names are used the way the reserved word set is used in >other languages. This is probably the hardest thing I've run across while trying to learn Forth. The vocabulary is very explosive. My best attempt at managing the mess is similiar to what I use when learning a new assembly language. I read the reference manual to get a feel for what kinds of things can be done. Then I jump in to write code, refering back to the manual to find out specifics such as how to spell the instruction that does <x> and what the order of its arguments is. In that sense, Forth is like a very cisc-y machine language. I'd be interested to know what techniques other people use to approach this difficulty. Post or mail, I'll summarize mail. -Doug --- Fastest: (willett!dwp@gateway.sei.cmu.edu OR ...!sei!willett!dwp) ...!{uunet,nfsun,sei}!willett!dwp [in a pinch: dwp@vega.fac.cs.cmu.edu]
toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (01/11/90)
Well it's time I throw some more fat into the fire. Using or not using Forth has nothing to do with FIG membership costs! I joined FIG back in volume 2. I joined the local FIG chapter about the same time. I dropped FIG membership two or three years ago, and the local FIG chapter is defunct. But I still use Forth, and so do all the former FIGers I still know. Its all a matter of perceived value. When F83 came out, Forth Dimensions virtually became an F83 journal. Articles were labeled "83 Standard" even when they containd F83isms. Forth Dimensions lost most of its value for me. Then I had subscription problems -- at one point in time their subscriber database overflowed and their earlier subscribers got bounced out of the database. I also had a $10 off certificate that expired before the resubscription time rolled around (very clever on FIG's part). So I just gave up. I've always used JFAR to show off the Forth language, never Forth Dimensions. I felt the local FIG group died because members had nothing to gain by attending. When I joined, there was virtually no information available on Forth. The FIG group was the only way to find out anything. Now Forth implementations are far better documented, and a number of instructional books are readily available. Tom Almy toma@telgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
mef@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Fraeman) (01/12/90)
In article <6640@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes: > >I've always used JFAR to show off the Forth language, never Forth Dimensions. > At first I too was very impressed with JFAR. But then it seemed to sort of disappear for a quite a while just as a colleague had submitted a pair of (really neat IMHO-) articles. They just fell into a black hole for over a year and one of them never did rematerialize. I hope these problems are over now because the community desparately need a high quality refereed journal. In contrast I've seen articles sent in and published in Forth Dimensions in a mere matter of months. If you've got something you want to get out to your fellow Forther's right now, Forth Dimensions seems to have (by far) the widest distribution and quickest turnaround. Marty Fraeman mef@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu 301-953-5000, x8360 Room 13-s587 Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, Md. 20707