Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM!wmb
From: wmb@MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Forth in Forth vs. Forth in assembly language
Message-ID: <9009242140.AA18767@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 24 Sep 90 21:17:14 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: wmb%MITCH.ENG.SUN.COM@SCFVM.GSFC.NASA.GOV
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 18

> >Personally, I think that typing in an assembly listing is an utter waste
> >of time.

>       Well, foof! Currently working on ANS Forth for Amiga, in
> CAPE ASM. Allows me to think through everything down to the core.

Oops, I think we are talking about different things here.  I have no
objection to writing Forth kernels in assembler.  I just think that
*distributing* them as paper assembly listings is a waste of time.

This shouldn't be too controversial; nowadays, nearly everybody can
either read DOS floppies or knows someone who can, and failing that,
file transfer via RS-232 is nearly universal.

Metacompiled Forth/assembler is the implementation technique that I
use the most.

Mitch