Bob La Quey wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem I have with Forth (and many of Chuck's tools) is that they
never seem like a force multiplier.
Why don't you amplify the idea of a force multiplier. You
need not discuss Forth. Perhaps an example of what you mean.
A force multiplier lets me do more than I could before. It lets me
think closer to the problem level than the computer level. It moves me
from conception to result far faster than other tools.
For example, in engineering, Matlab and Mathematica are force
multipliers. I can conceive of something, but I don't have to get
bogged down in the details of simulating or calculating it unless I need
to. I can let Matlab and Mathematica handle that. Stuff that used to
take 20 people now takes 1.
Similar things hold for computer languages. Assembly lets me get the
job done, but C lets me do more with less grunt work. Python and Lisp
let me do more with even less grunt work than C.
Graphics and sound libraries let me create games in hours that used to
take months.
All of these things allow me to focus more on what I want to do rather
than how I want to do it.
It's like a table saw or a planer in woodworking. Sure, I can cut the
boards by hand or plane them to shape by hand. However, the power tools
let me get there faster with less effort. I can move from conception of
the result to the actual result far easier than with hand tools.
Of course, some people enjoy the old ways. There is a visceral pleasure
in using more primitive tools for a project. However, then the goal is
the trip, not the destination.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
