Language "attitudes"

Coincidentally, after reading the fireside chat by Charles Moore that Graham linked for us, I ran across a quotation from Larry Wall. These two statements make an interesting contrast: If it isn't 100 times smaller than 'C' it isn't Forth. Chares Moore It's okay to program in Perl Baby-Talk and we won't laugh. Larry Wall My point is not the relative merits of the languages (nor of their inventors), but just to raise the questions: Which of these statements is likely to make a newcomer to the language feel welcomed and empowered? and Which of these is likely to make the newcomer feel intimidated and apprehensive? 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 -- I suggest that a welcoming, supportive community can have a big impact on the acceptance of a language. -jn- ------------------------------------------------------------ Programming languages: compact, powerful, simple ... Pick any two! joel'dot'neely'at'fedex'dot'com

Joel Neely wrote:

> Coincidentally, after reading the fireside chat by Charles > Moore that Graham linked for us, I ran across a quotation > from Larry Wall...

Joel Neely wrote:

> OK. I promise. No more rambling after this. But I can't > resist providing a link to a talk by Larry Wall, who gives > a "State of the Onion" talk at every year's Perl conference. > (It helps to know that Larry is a linguist and a REAL joker > with a love of outrageous puns.) > > http://www.perl.com/pub/1999/08/onion/talk1.html

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 >

> Which of these statements is likely to make a > newcomer to the language feel welcomed and > empowered? >

> Given that both languages can look intimidating to the > uninitiated -- a sample of FORTH looks like this: > 2/ 1. + SWAP OVER /. > + 2/ ; END

Graham Chiu wrote:

> Hi Joel, > > 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 > > empowered? > > 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: > And I believe it can also look like: > Orion telescope point

Joel, you cite a bit unfair.. you show color-forth code without colors.. so, first here the url http://www.ultratechnology.com/fsc98.htm then, it is to say color-forth is meant for pda-programmers :) Well, not really.. the sad thing is Chuck has eye-dissease which disables him to have more than ~256 chars on a large monitor. IIRC . He addressed this with replacing chars with colors set-word!s are red and so on. And with heavy abbreviations, thus all this 1. *. .. names. With colors one has not to markup with formatting, so he can fill the whole line, all the precious visible space.. Shorts code. Keeps things visible. 24x6 chars for the source of an integer-squareroot i count. That could be pda-size programming.. So i think he will see something like this on a 800x600-screen: -Volker [REBOL [title: "coloring color forth" file: %ccf.r date: 27-May-200 author: "Volker Nitsch" ] forth: { 'SQRT 1.: 1FF. ; *.: 1. */ ; /.: 1. SWAP */ ; 3/2: DUP DUP *. *. *. SQRT: DUP 1. - 1 + + 2/ 1. + SWAP OVER /. 2/ ; :END } lay: copy [] lines: parse/all forth "^/" foreach l lines [ words: parse l "" foreach w words [ color: any [ if #"'" = first w [remove w blue] if #":" = last w [remove back tail w red] if #":" = first w [remove w] green ] append lay compose [text (w) (color) font-size 68] ] append lay [return] ] view layout compose [ backdrop [quit] button "browse" [browse http://www.ultratechnology.com/fsc98.htm] across text blue "a comment" text red "set-word!" text green "normal (word! or number!), compile it" text green {";" closing bracket} text black "dont-compile, execute now!" space 15x3 across return (lay) ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ursprüngliche Nachricht <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

> Graham Chiu wrote: > > > Group" which was held on Saturday, 11 November 2000. IMHO, > FIG does qualify as a significant part of the FORTH community.

<snip> > As mentioned above, I believe that there are many in the > FORTH world (perhaps excluding Forth, Inc.) who still regard > Chuck Moore with great respect, and I have heard the ideas > represented by that quotation many times over the years.

> > > > > Given that both languages can look intimidating to the > and is not so different from what one finds if one looks > sufficiently deeply under the hood of 'Orion or 'point .

> -jn-

Volker Nitsch wrote:

> Joel, you cite a bit unfair.. > you show color-forth code without colors.. >