On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 19:00:46 +0100
Gareth's Downstairs Computer
 wrote:

> On 28/06/2018 18:16, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 13:31:50 GMT
> > stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) wrote:
> >
> >> This is just proof by repeated assertion. What qualifies you to make
> >> these assertions? I have run a Forth software shop since 1981, so on
> >> a did/didn't basis, I've seen a lot of Forth code. As an embedded
> >> systems rogrammer, I've seen a huge amount of bad C code and bad
> >> code in a range of languages.
> >
> >  I am reminded by this of the rants about Perl being only fit for
> > scripting and obfuscated hackery, whereas in fact it can be used to
> > write well structured, intentional and highly readable code. I've not
> > used Forth enough to know for sure but I would be surprised if the same
> > weren't true for Forth. There are very few languages that force you to
> > write code that's hard to read.
> >
>
> As you say, you have not used FORTH.

 I didn't say that, I said I haven't used it enough to know for
sure what it's like for large projects (IOW I've never used it for a
large project). I have used it enough to believe that it can be used to
write large maintainable programs.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05