Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: What's WRONG with Forth?
Message-ID: <2446.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 4 Mar 91 13:19:45 GMT
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 22

Category 2,  Topic 9
Message 49        Thu Feb 28, 1991
M.HAWLEY                     at 21:41 EST
 
I agree with this method, but take it even farther. I have gotten in the
habbit of writing in a verticle style with comments on the right. I show the
contents ofboth  both the data and return stacks.  example: : F*  ( m1 e1  m2
e2 -- mp ep ) \ product of fnumbers
     rot       \ m1 m2 e2 e1 --   3rd to top            * rstack *
     +         \ m1 m2 es --      sum of exponents
     >r        \ m1 m2 --         save sum to rstack        es
     2dup      \ m1 m2 m1 m2 -- - Well, you get the idea. This is a very slow
way to write code, but I have had a lot of things work exactly right the FIRST
time doing it this way. In the long run that's faster. It also makes it very
easy to look at old code and reverse engineer what I was thinking about at the
time I wrote it.  Let's make FORTH a read/write language - ( not write only ).
...meh...
-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp