Re: FORTH levels
- From: Jerry Avins <jya@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:16:12 -0500
John Doty wrote:
...
And I don't think that those who find Forth "readable" are really reading in a linguistic sense. Forth is relatively easy to serially decode, but humans don't normally read printed text that way. Unlike listening, reading is successive refinement, not serial accretion (this is demonstrated by experiments tracking readers' eyes). This is another way Forth fails to engage the human language facility, while other languages succeed.
I can't think of any programming language I would choose for writing a love letter.
...
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: FORTH levels
- From: John Doty
- Re: FORTH levels
- References:
- Re: FORTH levels
- From: John Doty
- Re: FORTH levels
- From: Marc Olschok
- Re: FORTH levels
- From: John Doty
- Re: FORTH levels
- From: Marc Olschok
- Re: FORTH levels
- From: John Doty
- Re: FORTH levels
- From: Marc Olschok
- Re: FORTH levels
- From: John Doty
- Re: FORTH levels
- Prev by Date: Re: FORTH levels
- Next by Date: Re: FORTH levels
- Previous by thread: Re: FORTH levels
- Next by thread: Re: FORTH levels
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading