 | | RE: intro and question —Ralph Hempel
|
| | | (...) Which is funny, because I read the webpage and it turns out you need to download 23MB of stuff and it ends up installing NQC on your system... (...) If you're a beginning programmer, I'd go with NQC for the simple reason that there are lots of (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: intro and question —Steve Baker
|
| | | | (...) Forth isn't by any stretch of the imagination a good language to learn as your *first* language - although it *is* pretty cool for writing embedded system software on teeny-tiny processors once you grok the whole programming thing. ---...--- (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: intro and question —Jim Choate
|
| | | | | (...) It's a fine language as long as the potential user understands how to use dual-stack based languages/systems (ie TIL's). I suggest folks who want to learn Forth get themselves a good grounding in RPN. From there it's the same old same old with (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: intro and question —Erik Olson
|
| | | | | (...) Forth was my second language (after Basic). The hours I spent at user group lectures sweating the fine points of stack management and memory allocation were a fabulous preparation for programming. If you survive the experience, that is. You (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: intro and question —Matt Lawrence
|
| | | | (...) There's been enough research to suggest that Forth is an excellent first language that I would disagree. As a second or third language, there's much more to unlearn. -- Matt (22 years ago, 17-Jun-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
