Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!dsl.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Blocks vs Text files
Message-ID: <1821.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 5 Oct 90 03:27:46 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 34


 Date: 09-25-90 (14:00)              Number: 3855 (Echo)
   To: ALL                           Refer#: NONE
 From: CHARLIE HITSELBERGER            Read: HAS REPLIES
 Subj: BLOCKS AND FILES              Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

 I realize that this is probably asking a question about a great debate
 that has already been waged here, but I wasn't here then, so I am
 asking. 

 What is better, Blocks or files?   (for editing source, that is)

 I think I know why Chuck Moore used blocks.  It was closer to the bare
 metal, easier to get an editor flying, totally generic, and about the
 size of a screen.

 Personally, I am more comfortable writing vertical code, with nested
 control structures and all that.  Moreover, the hardware that I most
 frequently run Forth on does not have the 64-column by 16-line video
 hardware that a Forth block expects to be displayed on.  It is actually
 40 columns by 25 lines.  I am sure all you PC guys were a little
 disappointed that the standard didn't call for an 80 by 25 block!  Then
 there's the issue of all that wasted blank space when you use blocks. 

 And then there's the "both!" school of thought.  I am leaning closer to
 this one.  Have blocks as the baseline but at least add in an "FLOAD"
 word (or sovwwww @mething similar) to an extension set.  Anybody's
 comments on this will be most appreciated.

 Tastes Great!  Less Filling!  Tastes Great!  Less Filling!  Blocks! 
 Files!  Blocks!  Files!
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp