On 18 Aug, 11:09, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 18, 1:21 am, Standish P <stnd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > This you might want to take this to the Forth people because they are > > marketing their language as a cure for all that plagues programming > > today. > > No, they're not. That I agree with. > Stack based languages have seen better days and Forth > (and the SL/1 language I supported with compilers at Bell-Northern > Research) were last in fashion in the 1970s. Processors seldom could > multitask, so it wasn't recognized that the stack could be a > performance bottleneck, where stack operations cannot be pipelined or > executed in parallel. > > John Hennessy of Stanford and MIPS made the stack must die case at ACM > ASPLOS in 1987. Niklaus Wirth was also at this conference at which I > was a fly on the wall, maintaining that the stack was good for > reliability and verifiability of software. > > Forth had a snowball's chance because it forces ordinary programmers > to think in Reverse Polish notation and is for the above reasons hard > to pipeline, although of course it can be pipelined. I really don't understand much of what you're saying here; Forth can be implemented on processors that have several hardware assisted stacks, 1 stack or even no stack at all. Multitasking? Why's that a problem? And why is it hard to pipeline? Are you thinking of a specific processor? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list