Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekcrl!tekgvs!toma From: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: Forth, Creativity, Snobbishness, and the Future Message-ID: <6622@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> Date: 8 Jan 90 15:57:30 GMT References: <6047@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Reply-To: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 22 In article <6047@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> dunn@uhccux.UUCP (John Dunn) writes: >Lastly, some comments on the Forth block editor. While the 64 >character line limit does tend to discourage comments - not a good >thing in any language - the block editor has one critical thing going >for it. It allows you to incrementally compile your code right from >the editor. An integrated ascii text editor could do that. Most >Lisp editors, for example, are smart editors that allow you to >compile individual functions. I would applaud such a Forth editor, >in fact I'm writing one in my spare time for the LMI UR/Forth that I >use. Naturally, I'm using a block editor to write it with. :-) I don't think a block editor has anything to do with this. I wrote a Forth system about 1982 that allowed this. When an error occured, you would be placed in the editor automatically. After making any changes, you had the option of continuing compilation from that point. I could have done the same thing with text files. BTW, I prefere blocks for source code because it provides the necessary dicipline to keep definitions short. Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply