Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/12/12/06:16:13
On 12 Dec 1997 05:48:59 GMT, "Jack Klein" <jackklein AT worldnet DOT att DOT net> wrote:
>1. Your description included some buzzwords which could be
>interpreted to indicate that you were talking about an
>implementation of "forth" (such as "virtual machine", "byte
>code", and "interpreter"), but nowhere did you explicitly say
>that this was an implementation of forth.
I said it was a scripting language, which can easily be embedded into C
programs. Since virtually nobody knows Forth, I thought describing the
technology used may be a more accurate description. Note that 4tH doesn't use
the classic forth architecture! Otherwise it wouldn't have been so compact,
since any classical implementation of forth has to grab a large chunk of memory.
4tH doesn't. From the inside it's more like UCSD Pascal or Java.
>2. Since this is a group about programming in standard C, and
>linking to other languages is outside the standard, why post it
>here?
Simply because this is a library, written in C, to be used with C. That is why
it was developed in the first place. It is even written in the most standard C
you can imagine. It is used on a large number of platforms. But the other point
you put makes it quite interesting from a philosophical point of view. Must a
scripting language for C be standard C (like SALT for Telix)? Personally, I
don't think the standard applies to the scripting language, only to the code
that implements the scripting language.
Hans
================
"First make it work, then improve it."
Visit our website! http://visitweb.com/hansoft
*** Home of the 4tH compiler! ***
- Raw text -