Self is not against Forth
Thu, 3 Aug 1995 16:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
On Wed, 2 Aug 1995, Rainer Blome wrote:
> to all:
> billy, you said:
> > I know very little about self.
> sorry, if you don't don't know self, you'll sure have a difficult time
> understanding my message.
I agree. :)
I am having a hard time getting info on Self because I don't even have
access to a Sun workstation, nor can I print postscript (and viewing PS
is a laugh).
> > All I know is that the easiest language to assembley-extend is Forth,
> > probably because it's so simple.
> how do you know that? _why_ is that so simple? if it's so simple, the
> reason for that can't be difficult to describe? ;-)
Perhaps I mixed my antecedants there (I certainly did mispell enough words!).
I said that Forth is very simple, therefore it's easy to extend. That IS
the resaon why it's easy to extend. Surely you've seen Forth
assemblers-- even for a CISC system the source for a Forth assembler is
easy to read. The same is true for more complicated projects, such as
list processors and indeterminate finite state machines.
I didn't intend for that statement of mine to sound like a comparison to
self, BTW-- I know nothing about it, and have no basis to criticise. My
statements apply strictly to Forth, and thus should have not used the
comparative "easiest". I'm sorry.
> greetings, rainer
Since I can't learn Self, can I at least look at it? Does anyone have a
site that has some actual Self code, as opposed to papers?