What I've learned so far...
Tue Mar 25 16:55:02 2003
On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 11:15:56AM +0100, Massimo Dentico wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2003 19:30:36 -0800 (PST), Brian T Rice <email@example.com>
> >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.
Thank you Brian. Parameters are delimited in C, Lisp, ML, etc.; variable
arity is okay. The parenthesis are worth typing. Of course, they get out
of hand in commonplace arithmetic expressions, where infix (with a
precedence hierarchy) is nice; but that's easily added to Forth and Lisp.