On 2021-11-23, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > > Fair enough - forth seems to be popular in ROM definitions. I don't > > completely trust those SO numbers. I picked some more reasonable F#y > > keywords like `let` and `|>` and got over 1/4 million files. The F# > > compiler itself is reported to be 5-10% `forth` by the github id, and > > that seems unlikely https://github.com/dotnet/fsharp/search?l=f%23 > > > >  > > > > I'll think on this - I would love vim to have beautiful F# support. I > > can get by with a hacked distribution for now. I am interested in the > > language integration in neovim too, so this might be the catalyst to > > switch which would be a bit sad, but I appreciate the principled > > discussion. > > I don't think forth is a popular language. It's also very old and I > would think popularite goes down. It doesn't show up in the list that > github provides: https://madnight.github.io/githut/#/pull_requests/2021/3 > While F# is in position 38. Still below Vim script.
The Gforth source was last updated in 2014. The Gforth mailing list is still active. It's hard to tell how much it's actually used. I didn't look for projects using it. > I wonder why Forth files would end in ".fs", it's more logical to read > it as F Sharp. FORTH has apparently been around since 1970 and Gforth since 1992. FORTH files needed an extension and .f was already taken by FORTRAN, so someone thought of .fs. F# wasn't a consideration since it didn't appear until 2005. Regards, Gary -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/vim_dev/20211123165034.GA32660%40phoenix.
