| Re: a relational database done in forth would r0ck |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: comp.lang.forth · Group Profile
Author: John PassanitiJohn Passaniti Date: Aug 27, 2008 09:31
Jonah Thomas wrote:
> What particularly impressed me about Forth was that if you use a very
> simple Forth that has no locals etc, bad coding practices tend to show
> up as bad right away. It takes good technique to get anything much done.
In what sense does bad coding practice show up as bad right away? Forth
is no different from any other language in this regard. Bad coding
practice (poorly factored definitions, deeply nested control structures,
undisciplined use of globals, etc.) compiles just fine if it is
syntactically correct under Forth. Where are the warning bells?
I don't believe bad coding practice in Forth (or any language) shows up
right away. I believe bad coding practice only shows up when some body
of code is extended, reworked, repackaged as a library, or in some way
changed. I don't see how Forth makes this any more obvious than any
other language.
> It's the difference between sophisticated woodworking tools that cover
> up your bad technique, versus simple tools that fail with bad technique.
It makes a nice statement, but I have yet to find any sophisticated
woodworking tool that has the ability to cover bad technique.
| 
