Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!mit-eddie!rutgers!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: <1872.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 16 Oct 90 03:16:48 GMT
Organization: String, Scotch tape, and Paperclips.  (in Pgh, PA)
Lines: 27


 Date: 10-06-90 (23:18)              Number: 3975 (Echo)
   To: DEAN MARTINDALE               Refer#: 3949
 From: DAVID BREEDING                  Read: NO
 Subj: BLOCKS AND FILES              Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE

 Ok, as I've stated here before...I think files are a GREAT improvement
 over the 'starting forth blocks' way of dividing up disk space. 
 However, I must disagree about the use of blocks.  Now granted, if you
 have it all printed on paper files are better and more readable.  But if
 you're working on a program in memory, blocks are easier to work with.

 For instance...with CPM F83 loaded into my system I can request the
 source of ANY word (view command).  This allows me to see not only the
 code (which can be done by decompiling) but also my comments and such. 
 This can not be done with text files, and until I can get a editor that
 I can call and use from wthin Forth itself, I'm not about to go
 switching back and forth between the editor and forth (that's the reason
 I hate C).  In short, blocks are a good comprimise.  You can only see
 about 1 blocks worth of information at a time anyway, so it only makes
 since to show one screen of information at a time.  Blocks is just the
 best way (as of right now) to do it.

 If a better way comes along, I'll be the first in line...
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett through a semi-automated process.
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us or uunet!willett!dwp