[REBOL] Re: Language "attitudes"
From: gchiu:compkarori at: 27-May-2001 11:06
On Sat, 26 May 2001 11:55:03 -0500
Joel Neely <[joel--neely--fedex--com]> wrote:
> If it isn't 100 times smaller than 'C'
> it isn't Forth.
> Chares Moore
First off, the Forth community and Charles Moore have long
parted. I got the impression from reading these transcripts
that the Forth community are where Moore was 20 years ago.
My interpretation of the above statement is that if the code
you write has not correctly abstracted the problem, then it
hasn't attained the Forth ideal, and therefore by definition
is not "Forth". That is to say that Forth is not just a
programming language but also a programming philosophy.
> Which of these statements is likely to make a
> newcomer to the language feel welcomed and
I think the statements are in different contexts and so your
question is biased :-)
> Given that both languages can look intimidating to the
> uninitiated -- a sample of FORTH looks like this:
> SQRT 1. 1FF. ; *. 1.
> */ ; /. 1. SWAP */
> ; 3/2 DUP DUP *. *. *.
> SQRT DUP 1. - 1 + +
> 2/ 1. + SWAP OVER /.
> + 2/ ; END
And I believe it can also look like:
Orion telescope point