1. Re: Forth
Bernie Ryan wrote:
> Has anyone ever written a Forth like language
> that was extendable like Forth but didn't use
> such cryptic syntax?
Most attempts to 'fix' FORTH seemed doomed to fail because they add a *lot*
of overhead. Most people who use FORTH use it because assembly language is
the only other alternative to fall back on.
The 'cryptic' syntax also puts the coder closer to the inner workings of the
interpreter. For example, you can add new data structures, and even new
control structures (CASE, WHILE, etc) to FORTH. Not many other languages let
you do that (LISP and Smalltalk come to mind).
There is a language called TIPI that attempts to blend FORTH and BASIC; you
might be interested in trying it out. It wouldn't be that hard to write a
threaded language in Euphoria, although it would probably run fairly slowly.
-- David Cuny
