Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 00:34:27 +0200 From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> To: Jerry Hicks <jhicks@glenatl.glenayre.com> Cc: Andrzej Bialecki <abial@nask.pl>, Jerry Hicks <jhicks@glenatl.glenayre.com>, FreeBSD Small <freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG>, "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> Subject: Re: Command-line i/f using Forth Message-ID: <Version.32.19981006003129.0101ee10@pop.wxs.nl> In-Reply-To: <199810051532.LAA10779@jhicks.glenatl.glenayre.com> References: <Your message of "Sat, 03 Oct 1998 19:45:30 EDT." <199810032345.TAA21910@whizzo.transsys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
At 17:32 05-10-98 , Jerry Hicks wrote:
>>
>> > Again, I fully agree with you - that's also my intention. And I see a
>> > Forth -based shell as a means to accomplish it - to glue all these
>> > elements together, at the same time giving it flexibility and programming
>> > abilities far beyond those of /bin/sh.
>>
>> I can certainly see how having an extensible shell would be a very
>> attractive thing. But if you expect mere mortals to be able to
>> run (and extend) the thing, I think a FORTH-based approach is doomed
>> to fail (again).
>
>Not necessarily... Quite a few mortals know how to code Forth. I have
>enjoyed a fair amount of success over the years introducing Forth to new
>programmers.
Definately need to try it now =)
>> Why wouldn't something based on TCL be a better choice? Sysadmins are
>> probably more likely to be familiar with it (perhaps due to experience
>> with "expect"). It has a pretty reasonable syntax, and perhaps
>> a more familair procedural type model.
>
>I can see getting a complete Forth onto the PicoBSD floppy within 8K or so.
>
>We can't do that with TCL.
That's the #1 argument for everything pico(BSD), the size (and yet still be
useful)
>Forth is considered a procedural language, although there are some
>implementations which offer expert systems and object-oriented support.
Do we need those implementations? As far as my opinion goes, we don't need
OO, but expert might come in handy when routing approaches the stage where
they can be predicted (bad thing(tm) mayhaps).
>I'll bet we will find a new set of FreeBSD aficionados created when some
>implementation gets released. See comp.lang.forth for lively discussion.
Might check it out...
>Forth is very much alive and kicking. When one is seeking a minimalist
>solution, I can't think of a better alternative to assembly code.
Ahh ok... *looking* =)
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven / Asmodai <asmodai(at)wxs.nl>
ICQ-UIN: 1564317 .:. Ninth Circle Enterprises
Network/Security Specialist
/==|| FreeBSD and picoBSD, the Power to Serve ||==\
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>;
iQA/AwUBNhk7ZIY752GnxADpEQLjIQCbBkFRHoDuKJ8BFoI7O1/kbRNcwWQAoNuQ
Ro8fgqTPLBNtOkvn6PyOxcOJ
=bEza
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Version.32.19981006003129.0101ee10>