What I've learned so far...

Massimo Dentico m.dentico@virgilio.it
Mon Mar 24 02:16:01 2003

On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:30:36 -0800 (PST), Brian T Rice <water@tunes.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Tom Novelli wrote:
>> I stand by my conclusion.  C translates directly to Forth, but some really
>> easy optimizations are done in the process.  Types make this possible, and
>> infix syntax helps a little also.  For an equal effort, C is faster.  It's
>> also easier to read and maintain.  I won't be drawn into a holy war.  I'm
>> just saying Forth has no place in Tunes.
> Just so things are technically clear, would you say that "infix"ity is not
> the exact technically enabling feature so much as it is being able to
> deduce function arity from the source code? This seems to be what you're
> referring to, since Lisp would have the same quality and is not infix
> (except for keyword arguments, which basically "look" infix).

This will be a feeble excuse: even in Forth words with a variable number
of  parameters  and/or  results  (stack  items  consumed/produced)   are
deprecated, so  this is  not really  a problem: if you  check types, for
example, you also check arity.


Massimo Dentico