Subject:
|
Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Nov 1999 07:48:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
455 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, Graham Stalker-Wilde writes:
> 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.
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 order to 'think Forth'. Maybe it will be easier in time...
As for the ease of use, it doesn't seem much faster to work with, considering
the time needed to download the firmware and a larger application file... It is
faster for very incremental development, but I feel safer when I have a file
where everything is neatly saved...
but it's just my personal opinion, and it may change after working more with
pbForth! ;-)
/Vlad
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | RE: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: lack of interest in basic stamp and basicx
|
| (...) 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)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
