Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!idacom!andrew From: andrew@idacom.UUCP (Andrew Scott) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Success of FORTH in the marketplace Message-ID: <708@idacom.UUCP> Date: 28 Jul 89 20:20:34 GMT References: <33300@apple.Apple.COM> Organization: IDACOM Electronics Ltd., Edmonton, Alta. Lines: 30 In article <33300@apple.Apple.COM>, landon@Apple.COM (Landon Dyer) writes: > FORTH is also getting creamed in the marketplace because of the snake-oil > attitude of some of its proponents. > I'm sick of smug, mindless drivel about nifty language features, the > implication being that other languages (and a lot of damn fine language > people) lack some divine spark and that FORTH is going to take over the > world Real Soon Now. Right. I agree, but in deference to Forth programmers, I think they (we?) have developed a complex from the continual bashing the language receives from programmers who don't use the language as it was intended to be used. It is not another Algol/Pascal/C style of language. Our experiences at IDACOM are that newcomers to Forth dislike it at first because they write code as a C programmer would, which doesn't work well for Forth. Words are not really equivalent to functions or subroutines found in procedural languages. We're not taught to factor to the extent that Forth demands. Large Forth words suffer from excessive stack manipu- lation words which lead to frustration with the language. They also can't be interactively debugged as easily. Other features, such as the ability to execute code at compile time, aren't really used because those kinds of things aren't available in the "blessed academic languages". Forth is supposedly easy to learn, but I think that the learning curve to "think Forth" is steep. Learning this language is not just a matter of learning the syntax, but also learning the style and methodology of using the language. -- Andrew Scott andrew@idacom - or - {att, watmath, ubc-cs}!alberta!idacom!andrew