Forth compiler?

Kevin Aylward kevinanaylward at home.com
Sun Apr 30 19:51:27 EST 2000


"Harry H Conover" <conover at tiac.net> wrote in message
news:8ei8n2$4t6 at news-central.tiac.net...
> Paul Victor Birke (nonlinear at home.com) wrote:
> : Dear Jeff
> :
> : Was there every a higher level language like BASIC that could be
> : compiled into FORTH code?
>
> Learn C Language programming, it's much more intuitive to program in
> than was FORTH, and with today's optimized compilers produces much more
> efficient code than does FORTH.
>
> : In other works you could write in non forth terminology yet get the
> : speed and compactness.
>
> You can get the same benefits using C, only better.  FORTH pushed and
> poped everything onto and from the stack, which in its day was kind of
> novel but today, largely due to it's total lack of type checking, its
> inability to be useful in anything but minimal code implementations,
> and the horror of trying to maintain and expand an application written
> in FORTH, FORTH is now an anachronism.  Fortunately, today only a
> few legacy FORTH applications are in common use, and those mostly in
> Radio Astronomy.
>
> With today's compilers, anything you could do in FORTH you can do in
> C better, and much safer.
>
> : I left Forth in the early 1980s when I got my first Ohio Scientific PC
> : in 1979 with Interpretive BASIC from Bill Gates BTW!
>
> Most of us abandoned FORTH when we obtained our first C compiler. Since
> that time I know of no one who has ever returned to FORTH.
>
>                                                      Harry C.
>
>

Hi,

I personally would recommend C++ to C. If you can program in C++ then you
can also program in C, hence there are more job opportunities.

Kevin Aylward , Warden of the Kings Ale
kevin at anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk - a currently free GUI xspice mixed-mode Windows
simulator with Schematic Capture and waveform display








More information about the Neur-sci mailing list