[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Industry versus academia
> But my bird's eye view is that forth is one of the few non gc'ed
> languages wherein you can define user-definable functions (words) at
> run time. I know gc is considered a win on this list, so no flames
> re. that please :)
In the absence of Patrick O' Donnell: I presume you wanted a non gc'ed
language for performance reasons, right?!
> The reason we wrote those layers I imagine (some of it was before my
> time) is to allow us to develop such code to connect to databases and
> to throw up user interfaces from Lisp machines and we were not
> satisfied with CLX/CLIM or ODBC type stuff.
> Also, by developing that
> layer, we could port our applications to run on other
> machines/OS as soon
> as we had a Lisp compiler (+ X server/client libraries + OCI
> libraries) for that machine/OS. (i.e. it decoupled our development of
> platform specific code from the development of our applications -- no
> small feat :)
Sure, but that sounds like a feature of your architecture, not the language.
> Forth makes it easy to connect to C code for X11 and OCI (Oracle),
> Sybase etc. and provides a way for Lisp to connect to it and define
> new transactions.. our programming is done entirely in Lisp, and the
> forth layer is somewhat hidden (except on rare occasions when you need
Probably most people would have picked C, apart from the run time words?!
What made run time words so important for that layer?