On Friday, August 21, 2015 at 5:29:21 AM UTC+2, Mux wrote:
> > > - Is interactive? no
> >
> > Then it isn't Forth, in my book.
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > -marcel
>
> By that definition, any interpreted language can be considered forth, no?
No, of course not, that is a logically unsound / wrong statement.
Apples have cores, but having a core doesn't make my computer
a Granny Smith.
> For me, forth embodies more than ticking a number of boxes.
> The hardware architecture itself, a way of thinking and applying
> the KISS approach. Interactivity can be part of it but that's in
> now way implied. Like I said, by that token writing a script in
> php falls into that category.
False reasoning. I said that it had to have an interpreter to be
Forth, not that that was the only thing it has to have. PHP does
not qualify.
> The hardware architecture itself, a way of thinking and applying
> the KISS approach.
If I must be more specific: I am sure the hardware has nothing
to do with being Forth -- Forth can be implemented on anything
(One can imagine crappy hardware architectures or incompetent
programmers that make the interpreter very inefficient).
'A way of thinking' is obviously true but says nothing.
I am not a big KISS proponent, but lately it has become clear to
me that any program / programming system will develop into a
monster of complexity over its lifetime (look at SPICE or Matlab,
or gcc, or Linux ...). One should fight that, but not every battle
needs to be or can be won. What helps is not to let lots of
developers work on it, and luckily for a Forth you don't
need many.
-marcel