On Sep 25, 2007, at 5:52 AM, Evans, Kevin R wrote:
I remember EEs at a prior company using Forth years ago. They used to "extend" the language set by "adding" their own instructions. Then they couldn't remember "how" their own instruction worked (these were EEs doing this stuff not software guys...../me waits for the verbal abuse to come in), so rewrote it for other code later on. Seemed very powerful but didn't see much use (at least at that company). I'm not surprised it didn't really go anywhere.
Nothing except maybe Lisp rivals Forth in terms of expressive-power- per-byte-of-language. But then a stack is just a bunch of parens turned on its side. It flourished in embedded environments where you had very tight constraints to work within. The other two places you saw things like Forth were the HP calculators' RPN (on those models featuring a full programming language, like the 28S and the 48) and PostScript (which is a small stack-based language, but not really Forth). Adam ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
