> On 25 March 2010 23:17, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
[...]
> > AFAICT, the collection of Vim plugins run the whole gamut
> > from the most serious to the most fun; but of course, for
> > heavy number-crunching, vimscript has the same
> > performance liabilities as most interpreted languages --
> > maybe not really all of them: so perhaps I could say that
> > for serious programming, FORTH is the way to go? ;-)
>
> Not sure what you're saying here.
I was saying that FORTH is fast ("good for number crunching") even when
interpreted. And in answer to something said in a later post to the one
to which I was replying here, it is practically infinitely extensible.
>
> > And BTW, (in answer to another post) how to compute an
> > arbitrary sum (of zero or more terms)? IIRC (it was
> > several decades ago):
> >
> > 0
> > 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 +
> > PRINT
Instead of PRINT I should have written . (a full stop, which in Forth I
read "print").
> > ----> 10
> >
> > Simple isn't it? (And the 0 can be left out if you also
> > omit the first +) By the time you've finished entering
> > the data, you have the result. :-P
>
> Now put your HP calculator away. :-) --Antony
>
It wasn't an HP calculator, it was (I think) a simple example of FORTH,
though it doesn't do justice to the language. I doubt Lisp is more
powerful; I suppose it might be *as* powerful and I'm not sure about
speed -- oh well, let's give it the benefit of the doubt until I study it.
I suppose you confused FORTH with HP calculator programming because both
are based on postfixed Łukasiewicz notation.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus
handicapped.
-- Elbert Hubbard
--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vim_use+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment