On 26/03/10 01:45, Antony Scriven wrote:
On 25 March 2010 23:17, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
[...]
> AFAICT, the collection of Vim plugins run the whole gamut
> from the most serious to the most fun; but of course, for
> heavy number-crunching, vimscript has the same
> performance liabilities as most interpreted languages --
> maybe not really all of them: so perhaps I could say that
> for serious programming, FORTH is the way to go? ;-)
Not sure what you're saying here.
I was saying that FORTH is fast ("good for number crunching") even when
interpreted. And in answer to something said in a later post to the one
to which I was replying here, it is practically infinitely extensible.
> And BTW, (in answer to another post) how to compute an
> arbitrary sum (of zero or more terms)? IIRC (it was
> several decades ago):
>
> 0
> 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +
> PRINT
Instead of PRINT I should have written . (a full stop, which in Forth I
read "print").
> ----> 10
>
> Simple isn't it? (And the 0 can be left out if you also
> omit the first +) By the time you've finished entering
> the data, you have the result. :-P
Now put your HP calculator away. :-) --Antony
It wasn't an HP calculator, it was (I think) a simple example of FORTH,
though it doesn't do justice to the language. I doubt Lisp is more
powerful; I suppose it might be *as* powerful and I'm not sure about
speed -- oh well, let's give it the benefit of the doubt until I study it.
I suppose you confused FORTH with HP calculator programming because both
are based on postfixed Łukasiewicz notation.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus
handicapped.
-- Elbert Hubbard
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" 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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vim_use+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or
reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
