> some remarks about using forth: > - certainly forth is missing all that nice pattern matching > like awk or perl, all this has to be coded.
Well, "C" is missing these as well, until you load a massive standard library :) > - I assume that even arrays are not available in forth Not as part of the "core" language you'll get with the 10-20K interpreter, but you can easily add words to manipulate arrays. > - because forth uses very unusual semantics (reverse > polish notation) it is not easy to understand and to > maintain (you have always to keep in mind, what is in > this moment at which position on the stack). Like perl makes sense? I can't read most perl code becuase of all the implicit file-handles and data sources...I see the code that modifies stuff, but I don't know what it's working on. Too many $.@/ things for me to keep straight. Each language has it's idosyncracies... > mawk is 49K compressed > perl4 is 136k compressed AFAIK, neither can do direct linux system calls, and both require another apx. 500K (compressed) C library to function. Charles Steinkuehler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: OSDN - Tired of that same old cell phone? Get a new here for FREE! https://www.inphonic.com/r.asp?r=sourceforge1&refcode1=vs3390 _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
