Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ucbvax!PENNDRLS.BITNET!DAVID From: DAVID@PENNDRLS.BITNET Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Thinking FORTH Message-ID: <8807251832.AA03400@jade.berkeley.edu> Date: 25 Jul 88 17:28:23 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: Forth Interest Group International List Organization: The Internet Lines: 30 mailrus!caen.engin.umich.edu!stejk@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Steven J Kassarjian) writes: > Personal Experience. As much as I've used Fortran (I'm a ChE), I >doubt I ever will _think_ in Fortran. For the short period of time I >used Forth (one class project), I started to think (and dream) in Forth. >(I was under a lot of pressure, too!) (strange :-) You know, you're right. I never thought about that before. I have done most of my programming in FORTRAN, but also work in C and assembler. FORTH, despite (because of?) its unusual 'syntax', is the only one that falls off my fingers naturally. I suspect that this is because the size of a FORTH 'program' (word) is closer to the size of a 'thought' than is a traditional language subroutine. This may in fact be far more important than the 'rapid prototyping' and high interactivity of FORTH development. (Not that I'm knocking either, mind you; they are both very important.) I am also fascinated by the NC4000. 4000 gates and it is effectively more powerful than the 68000. _That_ really says something for the elegance and power of the FORTH philosophy. KISS, but with the last S standing for 'smart'. I am gratified to know that the resulting programs are faster than comparable traditional chips, as well as smaller. -- R. David Murray (DAVID@PENNDRLS.BITNET, DAVID@PENNDRLS.UPENN.EDU) P.S.: For the person who asked about beginners books, I also highly recommend Leo Brody's books. 'Thinking FORTH' is probably the best book on programming I have ever read. But, then, I am biased toward FORTH.