On 2018-06-28, Ahem A Rivet's Shot  wrote:

> 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.

I dabbled briefly with a CP/M version on my IMSAI, and got as far as
writing a Sieve of Eratosthenes program.  It was kind of fun.  Still,
it would be fun to see a real-world application and see how useful
stuff is implemented.

Forth love if honk then

--
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  Fight low-contrast text in web pages!  http://contrastrebellion.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05