Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:20:31 +0100 (CET) From: Andrzej Bialecki <abial@nask.pl> To: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: lisp vs. Forth Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9811041217350.9870-100000@korin.warman.org.pl> In-Reply-To: <98Nov4.211907est.40336@border.alcanet.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Peter Jeremy wrote: > I prefer lisp for non-trivial work, but can get by in forth. You > can write illegible code in any language, so I don't think that > argument holds much weight. A forth kernel is much smaller than > lisp because there's no need for garbage collection or tagged pointers. > (The downside is that forth doesn't have garbage collection or > runtime typing :-). ...and some people consider it an advantage of Forth :-). You simply fetch/put an N-bit value, and _you_ should know what it means. Andrzej Bialecki -------------------- ++-------++ ------------------------------------- <abial@nask.pl> ||PicoBSD|| FreeBSD in your pocket? Go and see: Research & Academic |+-------+| "Small & Embedded FreeBSD" Network in Poland | |TT~~~| | http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ -------------------- ~-+==---+-+ ------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.02A.9811041217350.9870-100000>