Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!orr
From: orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Fraser Orr)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Thinking FORTH
Message-ID: <1534@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 27 Jul 88 11:00:08 GMT
References: <8807251832.AA03400@jade.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: orr@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Fraser Orr)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 30

>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

If what you are saying is that traditionally people wrote subroutines
in Fortran, C etc that were too long, I agree. But if you also are saying 
that the solution is to throw away these languages and use Forth, I totally
disagree. It seems to me a much better solution is to encourage people to
program properly ( i.e. with thought sized subroutines.)

>
>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.

It is quite interesting to hear all you forth programmers going on about
how wonderful it is that you have microprocessors that can run your
favourite language. I say this because chips like 68000, 80386 32000
etc, are chips specifically designed to run languages like C.
I would be interested to see any exprimental results comparing the
preformance of a Forth chip running forth compared with a 68000 running
C.

==Fraser Orr ( Dept C.S., Univ. Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK)
UseNet: {uk}!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!orr       JANET: orr@uk.ac.glasgow.cs
ARPANet(preferred xAtlantic): orr%cs.glasgow.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk