 | | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx —Graham Stalker-Wilde
|
| | | (...) I can't speak about LegOS, but I thought this about FORTH too, and it aint so. Once you get over the syntax it’s a straightforward procedural language. Jonathan Knudsen’s book has a good chapter on it that I found very helpful in getting (...) (25 years ago, 23-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx —Vlad Dumitrescu
|
| | | | (...) Yes, I agree with you, mostly. I have been programming in Forth before, and it slowly comes back. What I meant to say is that the stack oriented architecture is different than C, for example, and (for me, at least) a mental switch is needed in (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | RE: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx —Ralph Hempel
|
| | | | (...) It's funny, but a lot of what you need to do to write good Forth is done for you under the hood by C compilers. The wierd thing is that a C compiler intermingles data and return values on one stack while Forth separates them. (...) Now that (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx —Vlad Dumitrescu
|
| | | | (...) I agree that Forth is better than many other languages in many ways. What I was saying was that it has a different look-and-feel and one needs to get used to it first. Plus that it is not very easy to switch from for example C to Forth and (...) (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx —Sergey Udovenko
|
| | | | (...) was (...) But very refreshing gymnastic, isn't it? ;-) Sergey (25 years ago, 24-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
