Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth Programs (was Forth learning curve) Message-ID: <5JYB.2SZ.ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> Date: 28 Dec 89 21:11:33 GMT References: <798@mindlink.UUCP> <735@noe.UUCP> <7355@ficc.uu.net> <737@noe.UUCP> <7416@ficc.uu.net> <741@noe.UUCP> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 27 > >Forth didn't catch on for one simple reason... it's whole design is based > >on the assumption of rigidly limited memory. We're not in that world any > >more, except for us embedded control weenies. > I have to take issue with this. Forth's whole design (IMHO) is based > on threaded code, and nothing more. It seems to me that you can strip > every word out of the dictionary and start over, as long as you keep NEXT. You mean like Adobe did? What, you mean Forth caught on after all! But it takes HOW MUCH memory? :-> > Which elegance are you talking about? The elegance which requires > 1 Meg of > RAM to run with any performance? Or the elegance which eats 30% of the CPU > cycles? ;-) You're obviously confusing UNIX with some of the more recent brain-dead implementations, like BSD and System V. UNIX's whole design (IMHO) is based on a small set of system calls and a uniform files-oriented interface. It seems to me that you could strip every word out of the kernel and start over, as long as you keep chapter 2 of the manual. Hey, is there an echo in here? -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . 'U` Also or . "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com