gamber@cosmo.UUCP (Johannes Teich) (09/11/88)
The Pro & Con about Forth shows that Forth is an excellent tool and at
the same time is a clear mistake. It depends on the structure of the
human beings concerned. If one yells for a pre-compiler, why not?
(I for my part need interactivity and transparency = simplicity of the
*whole* system, not a black box, but that's my whim.)
Chuck Moore (cm), 1986:
cm> Standards are a red flag. If I had the slightest concern for them,
cm> Forth nor chip could not be. Standards are for communication among
cm> humans, not computers. [...] For every problem are many solutions.
cm> why choose one?
db> But we all seem to re-invent the wheel, number input, for example.
db> Maybe just a user interface or some kind.
cm> The wheel has been re-invented many times. It will be. To keep it
cm> simple, the overhead must be brutally pruned. I do this constantly,
cm> and I regret the inefficiency. But the most standard language must
cm> be ADA, and its efficiency is zero.
Martin Tracy, DDJ, 1988:
mt> The Harris RTXDS Software Development System includes a monitor,
mt> debugger, and a LMI-based cross compiler. By the end of the year,
mt> you can expect to see a full Forth Inc. polyFORTH system running
mt> on the evaluation board. Both C and ADA language translators are
mt> also in the works.
Here it is - the ultimate Forth pre-compiler. Good luck!
regards, Johannes Teich Murnau, Bavaria
11d 11.5m East, 47d 40.5m North