Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!hasan
From: hasan@ut-emx.uucp (David A. Hasan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Modular coding style
Message-ID: <49361@ut-emx.uucp>
Date: 22 May 91 15:54:36 GMT
References: <19607@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Organization: UTexas Center for Space Research
Lines: 33

In article <19607@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> ir230@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (john wavrik) writes:
>Forth has an undeserved reputation as a "read only" language -- which 
                                          ^(write-only?)
>probably comes from the absence of any accepted conventions for 
>writing. One of the strong points of Forth is that it does support a 
>modular style which, if word names are carefully chosen, enhances 
>readibility (to say nothing of utility) of code. 

I was originally drawn to Forth because of just this
observation.  Although it is in fact possible for a competent
programmer to write atrocious Forth, a reasonable amount of
thought (the sort which ought to precede the coding, anyway)
can quite easily lead to *elegant* Forth programs.  Brodie's
book "Thinking Forth" demonstrates this well.

However, all of us eventually (re)use code from other sources
(unless everything is done from scratch).  In this case, you
have to cope with styles and naming conventions that don't
necessarily mesh well with your own.   The "modules" which you
need to search through in order to find reusable code might
not fit well with the "modules" which you have dreamed up for
your application.

Forth style varies so much that it is virtually impossible to
construct a large system in one consistent style unless
everything is done from scratch.  The fact that no simple
mechanism exists which allows sets of Forth words (what I believe
Brodie called "lexicons") to be cut and pasted between
applications contributes to the belief that Forth is in fact
Write-Only. 
-- 
 |   David A. Hasan
 |   hasan@emx.utexas.edu