http://www.mpeforth.com/arena/ProgramForth.pdf section 21

I know I should stop theorizing but wouldn't it make sense that
something good in small memory systems would do really well with lots
of memory EG modern intel commodity hardware?

Or do things like lisp have garbage collection etc( he mentions) that
make it simpler that forth for non memory thin hardware?

gavino wrote:

In my opinion yes.

There is at least one Forth that supports garbage collection
(PowerMops). I'm not a big fan of GC, preferring instead to clean up
after myself explicitly. But the point remains that there is
*technically* nothing preventing high-level programming features from
being implemented in Forth.

-Doug

gavino wrote:

Its not the size of the computer memory that matters, its the
size of the human memory. The first Forth book worth reading
("Starting Forth" by Leo Brodie) has examples of using Forth in
small memory. The book about using Forth in large systems has
yet to be written. Programmers who write large Forth systems
will not publish their code for others to use. Its MUCH more
difficult to write Forth source for others to read than to just
write it for yourself when you remember what all your Forth
words do. The problem of knowing and remembering what other
programmers have done is the crucial step. Users of some other
languages are better at solving this than users of Forth, even
tho they don't do it very well.

m-coughlin wrote:

Programmers who write large Forth systems work in teams. All successful
teams (using Forth or any language) develop strategies to maximize code
sharing, documentation, and readability within the team. Once you
accept the concept of writing code for the team, it's certainly no
harder to do in Forth than other language. Forth has been used
successfully in team programming projects for over 30 years.

Cheers,
Elizabeth

Elizabeth D Rather wrote:

Elizabeth D Rather wrote:

^^^^^^

Successful languages have generally achieved their success by
facilitating import and export of code *between* teams, without such
detailed strategies.

Richard Owlett wrote:

On Mar 8, 2:50 am, Richard Owlett atlascomm.net> wrote:
[snip]

Exactly, for a business whether or not to share code is a commercial
decision not to be taken lightly.
I currently see no commercial advantage to sharing the code that most
differentiates our products from those of our competition. If on the
other hand we one day write a new device driver, or a some generic
utility for FreeBSD, for example, than I would have no problem
contributing this code to the open source community. But sharing the
code at the heart of our competitive advantage would be commiting
commercial hara-kiri.

Mark W. Humphries wrote:

What does this have to do with Forth?

John Doty wrote: