Mark,
One of the great things about Forth was the overhead of just a few
machine language instructions to execute a high level function call.
Transcript seems to require a trip around the world to jump next
door. For GUI speed stuff, it would not be a problem, but for my
array crunching stuff, I am stuck writing everything in one handler
to keep the speed up. The convenience of having an environment like
that would be very tempting to use for whatever could stand the
overhead --and that might be quit a lot of applications.
Dennis
On Oct 16, 2005, at 7:01 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:
Dennis-
Sunday, October 16, 2005, 9:58:04 AM, you wrote:
to Forth. Forth is a low level but extensible language and IDE from
Forth? (Running over to x's web site to check it out...) Forth is as
close to the metal as you can get without writing in ones and zeros.
One of the weaknesses of XTalk/Transcript in my opinion was that you
could not directly and efficiently extend the language in this
same way.
XTalk would be more on the path to Forthness if we could overload
keywords and add new ones. Of course, that would probably also require
namespaces and an include mechanism. Imagine patching "trunc" so that
it does the right thing by:
function trunc pValue
return trunc(pValue & "")
end trunc
--
-Mark Wieder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
