Re: PostLisp, a language experiment
astrobe_at_netcourrier.com
Date: 03/11/05
- Next message: Trent Buck: "Re: Lisp and Plato"
- Previous message: Rob Warnock: "Re: Wanted: Magic Lisp snippets"
- In reply to: Ulrich Hobelmann: "[OT] PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Next in thread: alex goldman: "Re: PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Reply: alex goldman: "Re: PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Reply: Christopher Browne: "Re: PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 11 Mar 2005 05:03:55 -0800
>
> The worst thing about Forth IMHO is the stack clutter. When every
> function has some swaps, dups, overs and nips in it, it takes
> concentration to keep track of the stack in your mind. Sure, there
are
> stack comments, but when you write those, you might just as well use
> local variables instead.
>
Objection! This is not a problem that belong to Forth, but a problem
with you ( or those who wrote the programs you've seen ) who don't know
how to program in Forth.
In a Forth programmer eye, a program that has "stack clutter" is bad,
and begs to be rewritten/redesigned. Good programs minimize stack
juggling, that is nothing more than a DUP or a SWAP or an OVER to glue
things together. Such programs can be read by newbies just an hour
after their first exposure to the langage ( that is, when they finished
to learn Forth ;)
Amicalement,
Astrobe
- Next message: Trent Buck: "Re: Lisp and Plato"
- Previous message: Rob Warnock: "Re: Wanted: Magic Lisp snippets"
- In reply to: Ulrich Hobelmann: "[OT] PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Next in thread: alex goldman: "Re: PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Reply: alex goldman: "Re: PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Reply: Christopher Browne: "Re: PostLisp, a language experiment"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|