Subject:
|
Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 May 1999 17:31:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
976 times
|
| |
|
|
Mark Tarrabain skrev i meddelandet <372E220C.D2F9AD52@lynx.bc.ca>...
>
> I do think, however, that it would be more practical to create
> a Forth bytecode producer for a home computer and then download
> that bytecode into the rcx. Then the rcx only needs to interpret
> the bytecode rather than also having to change source code into
> bytecode.
But the whole point with FORTH is that it is self-contained, and the
'compiling' part is an integrated part of the language (normally quite small),
and _used_ in programs, not only to get the programs into the computer. It's
an amazing language, but it takes (quite) a while to get used to.
The language can be extended how far you want, _inside_ the language, the
greater part of a FORTH compiler/interpreter can be (and often/mostly is)
written in FORTH.
I've seen an 8086 assembler (FORTH style) which was just a couple of screens
(one screen == 22 lines, 40 chars)!
I think FORTH is a marvelous idea, too bad the CyberMaster has it's firmware
in ROM :-((
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/gallery.htm
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Something else is needed, I think...
|
| (...) I don't think I am underestimating the amount of work, actually.Just because a language has a GUI toolkit does NOT make it user friendly or portable. (...) Then it's not self contained on TWO counts. One, as you mentioned, you need NQC to get (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
67 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
