🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <216@tekig5.UUCP> waynekn@tekig5.UUCP (Wayne Knapp) writes:
>
>I for one think writing my code in 1k blocks is stupid.

Well, I can think of a few good points (but not many):

1. Absolute portability -- does your system delimit lines with a CR, LF,
   CR-LF pair, or ??

2. Ease of implementation on simple systems.  I can put a complete Forth
   environment in an 2764 EPROM.  To add an ASCII stream file system would
   probably double the size (figuring increased Editor size as well).

3. The limited number of lines promotes writing of small definitions which
  are much easier to understand and debug.  A standard text editor allows
  writing terribly huge definitions.  Do you want to see a "C" program that
  has a case statement that is 20 pages long?  Drop by, I've got one (I
  didn't write it, though).

>Has anyone written a screen editor that avoids the 1k blocks?  If so and it
>is in the public domain, I would really like a copy.
>

Before I started with Forth, I used STOIC.  It has the Forth block
structure, but for loading purposes treats the blocks like a character
stream.  A file system is built on top of this, and a TECO-like (sorry)
editor is provided.  This is public domain, and I could send it to you.

Also, MMS-Forth (for IBM-PCs and TRS-80s) has a screen editor called
"NOTEPAD" which scrolls over screen boundries.  Since it deals with normal
Forth screens you still have 64 character files.

There are also simple modifications you can make to your Forth system to
redirect the console to a file of text.  I have done that on most of my
outside (of Tektronix) Forths I have implemented in the past four years to
appease people that just don't want to fool with screens.  You use any
arbitrary text editor under the DOS, and then run Forth to load it.
Personnally, this is too much like a batch environment for my taste.

>About Brodie's ideas.  
>
>     His views about dictionarys - Not only Forth,  what about lisp, smalltalk
>                                   prolog.  Not a new idea.

Well, only LISP is older than Forth.  Nobody gives LISP the credit it
deserves anyway (speaking as a former LISP hacker).

>
>     About editors               - completely all wet
>

AMEN!

>I suggest that if you want to read the book "Thinking Forth", that you should
>check it out from a libarary.  Don't waste any money on it.  The book starts
>out fine, but by the middle of the book Brodie gone over the deep end.

Well I think that it is a fine book, even for non-Forth programmers.  But it
needs to be read as one reads the editorial pages in a newspaper.  The book
is very SUBJECTIVE and OPINIONATED.  But then he admits that in the Preface.

My biggest gripe is his hatred of "objects" (pages 89-92), not recognizing
their importance in writing correct, understandable code.  He is concerned
with an imagined lack of control, and his use of the klutzy IBM/PC BIOS as
an example was inappropriate.


>By the way, I do think Forth is neat.


Me too.

Tom Almy