Sujet : Re: on Perl
De : david.brown (at) *nospam* hesbynett.no (David Brown)
Groupes : comp.unix.programmer comp.lang.miscDate : 17. Apr 2024, 20:05:03
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <uvp6gv$1onkq$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 17/04/2024 17:05, John Ames wrote:
On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 07:34:41 +0200
Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> wrote:
Really? It is a very small language and has almost no syntax.
I thought it was one of the easiest languages toe learn ib comparison
to C++ or Java.
*Syntactically* it's very simple, but explicit stack-orientation with
reverse-Polish notation is a *very* different programming paradigm than
practically everything else out there; even Lisp is closer to "normal,"
at least for functional-programming types. And that's before you even
get to the fairly idiosyncratic vocabulary or the type model that's
somehow both explicit and loose...
Another thing about Forth is that it gives C a run for its money in potential for obfuscation :
: 1 2 ;
1 1 + .
Redefine "1". That'll keep the reader on his/her toes!
…