Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 12:09:34 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Andrzej Bialecki <abial@nask.pl>, Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au> Cc: FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: lisp vs. Forth Message-ID: <19981105120934.X784@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9811041217350.9870-100000@korin.warman.org.pl>; from Andrzej Bialecki on Wed, Nov 04, 1998 at 12:20:31PM %2B0100 References: <98Nov4.211907est.40336@border.alcanet.com.au> <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9811041217350.9870-100000@korin.warman.org.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[respecting jkh's implicit wishes and following up to -chat] On Wednesday, 4 November 1998 at 12:20:31 +0100, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > 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. This somewhat limits what it's *allowed* to mean, unfortunately. Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981105120934.X784>