Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:49440 comp.sys.amiga.tech:9851 comp.lang.forth:2132
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!ncar!ico!ism780c!wilbur!scott
From: scott@wilbur.uucp (Scott Beckstead)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.amiga.tech,comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Thanks...Amiga Forth quest. answered
Message-ID: <1990Feb8.154759.21230@wilbur.uucp>
Date: 8 Feb 90 15:47:59 GMT
References: <3178@trantor.harris-atd.com>
Reply-To: scott@wilbur.UUCP (Scott Beckstead)
Organization: Wilbur's Bike Shop, Westlake Village, Ca
Lines: 28


   Let me say this about that.  I am a professional programmer who has 
Programmed  in Forth and C.  While Forth can do anything that C can
do  I don't particularly recomend trying to write all your aplications
in  Forth.  Both languages have advantages and weaknesses.  Forth is 
particularly  well suited to internal control (embedded systems) software
and  C is optimized for systems level support and development.  Though I
have  used both in the other aplication it was a poor fit.  The package
you  get also will tend to be specialized for one aplication or the
other.   Forth is extremely fast for an interpreted language but not
quite  as fast as most C programs.  The difference is admittedly small
and you could I suppose spend a lot of extra effort to eliminate it 
alltogether.   Lest some of you get the wrong idea writing in Forth requires
a special kind of thinking called RPN or reverse polish notation.  ie.
FORTH:
1  2 +
C:
1  + 2 
  the result from Forth is left on the stack and to assign the value
to  a variable requires yet another construct.  C merely requires that
you  affix a (var) = to the equation.  So enough soap boxing let's just
say  That C is a lot easier to learn  but Forth can be a lot of fun.
Scott

-- 
Scott Beckstead      | Sew Crates was a grate greek.  
CIS 76106,3720       |     Dang that one got right by the spelling checker
FIDO 1:206/2814      | don't look at me YOU wrote it!