On 04/19/2015 09:02 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 04:08 am, Albert van der Horst wrote:
Fire up a lowlevel interpreter like Forth. (e.g. gforth)
Yay! I'm not the only one who uses or likes Forth!
Have you tried Factor? I'm wondering if it is worth looking at, as a more
modern and less low-level version of Forth.
I also like Forth (since 83), but haven't done much in the last decade.
I was newsletter editor for our local FIG for many years.
I have met and debated with Elizabeth Rather, and been a "third hand"
for Chuck Moore when he was re-soldering wires on his prototype Forth board.
You can see my name in the X3J14 standard:
https://www.taygeta.com/forth/dpans1.htm#x3j14.membership
I'd be interested in a "more modern" Forth, but naturally, as a member
of band of rugged individualists, I wonder if it can possibly satisfy
more than one of us.
<googling...>
http://factorcode.org/
That site is my first time I recall seeing "concatenative" as a type of
language. Interesting way of thinking of it. I just call it RPN, and
relate it to the original HP35 calculator ($400, in about 1972).
From the overview, it looks like they're at least aiming at what I
envisioned as the next Forth I wanted to use. Instead of putting ints
and addresses on the stack, you put refs to objects, in the Python
sense. Those objects are also gc'ed. I don't know yet whether
everything is an object, or whether (like Java), you have boxed and
unboxed thingies.
Sounds interesting, and well worth investigating. thanks for pointing
it out.
--
DaveA
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
