From owner-freebsd-current Wed Nov 4 03:14:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id DAA04904 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 03:14:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from korin.warman.org.pl (korin.nask.waw.pl [148.81.160.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id DAA04898 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 03:14:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from abial@nask.pl) Received: from localhost (abial@localhost) by korin.warman.org.pl (8.9.1/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA14656; Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:20:33 +0100 (CET) X-Authentication-Warning: korin.warman.org.pl: abial owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 12:20:31 +0100 (CET) From: Andrzej Bialecki X-Sender: abial@korin.warman.org.pl To: Peter Jeremy cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: lisp vs. Forth In-Reply-To: <98Nov4.211907est.40336@border.alcanet.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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 -------------------- ++-------++ ------------------------------------- ||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