On Wed, 10 May 2006 19:58:16 +1200 yuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/05/06, Carl Cerecke wrote: > > PS might be OK in its narrow domain, but outside > > that it's not really suitable as a general purpose language. > > Who said anything about general purpose? > My original comment was: > "What a perfect language for my needs." > > I didn't elaborate in those needs at the time, and I won't right now, > suffice to say that it _is_ well within the narrow domain for which PS > was created. > > > Even for diehard HP48 owners. > > The fact that I have about 14 years experience using and programming a > stack based RPN calculator is immeasurably helpful given that I need > to become proficient with PS very rapidly. > > Yuri de Groot > (Working on a top secret project for his own amusement)
As a fanatical forth programmer on 8 bit micros (z80) I sympathise, although I haven't found a lot of use for forth on modern computers and OSes. People still write fast libraries in forth, fourier transforms and the like. It's also popular for programming PICs etc. I have half a dozen forth books, I'd proudly say the best forth library you will find in a long search on these shores. Both of Leo Brodie's books, Threaded Interpreted Languages by R Zoeliger, the list goes on...
