What I've learned so far...
Mon Mar 24 02:16:01 2003
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:30:36 -0800 (PST), Brian T Rice <firstname.lastname@example.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.