bearophile wrote:
Forth interpreters can be very small, it's a very flexible language,
you can metaprogram it almost as Lisp, and if implemented well it can
be efficient (surely more than interpreter Basic, but less than
handwritten asm. You can have an optimizing Forth in probably less
than 4-5 KB).
But the people was waiting/asking for the Basic Language, most people
didn't know Forth, Basic was common in schools, so Basic was the
language shipped inside the machine, instead of Forth:
http://www.npsnet.com/danf/cbm/languages.html#FORTH
The Commodore 64 with built-in Forth instead of Basic may have driven
computer science in a quite different direction.
Do you agree?
I remember lots of talk about Forth, and nobody using it.
