Message from discussion forth vs lisp
Received: by 10.68.6.138 with SMTP id b10mr719134pba.8.1320962338767;
Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:58:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Kaz Kylheku <k...@kylheku.com>
Subject: Re: forth vs lisp
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:58:58 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Injection-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:58:58 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="UCk3K/YilCUd19+i749f3A";
logging-data="4976"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19CEBwWIkqocwskVYFc5QIkYPnhSR0z8f4="
User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-18 (Linux)
On 2011-11-10, Fritz Wuehler <fr...@spamexpire-201111.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>> > FORTH is fundamentally interactive, LISP is not, not
>> > fundamentally.
>> What do you mean?
> The first LISPs ran on IBM machines, in batch AFAIK and this was true for
> many years. That is as far from interactive as it gets. You code something,
> you punch it on cards, you submit a job to the operator, he runs it when he
> gets a chance, it prints out, the operator hands you the printout when he
> gets a chance. You fix what you mispunched or miscoded and try again.
This process was a necessity due to the I/O limitatons of the hardware,
as well as the need to share one very expensive room-sized box among
an entire department.
Had Forth come along at that same time, it's hard to see how it could
have avoided job submission on punched cards.
You're writing about a historic dialect which quite different from
what Lisp became even ten years after that.
> There is nothing fundamentally interative about LISP.
Later Lisps like InterLisp and MacLisp were quite fundamentally
But Lisp does support the "edit compile and build image" deployment model.
As does Forth.