/prog/ - FORTH — World4ch

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 1:24

Hi there /frog/. I'm interested in learning Forth, and would like to know what implementation you suggest.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 1:41

I would use gforth. The only reason for this is that my package manager includes it.

My advice: find the one that has the best I/O support. (This is my general advice for selecting a language implementation.) I don't think you'll find I/O lacking in (just about) any forth, so it probably doesn't matter.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 5:11

what are your reasons for learning forth? if you're just interested in learning any stack-based language, you might be better off learning factor (http://factorcode.org/).
if you really want forth, pforth is the only one i've used... despite the gnu part, gforth seems to work pretty well, so it's probably a good option unless the anti-free license bothers you.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 10:25

isn't factoring NP hard though? what kind of idiot would use it as programming language?

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 10:43

>>4
All my programs are Gödel encoded.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 11:14

>>2
>>3
Thanks; gForth it is.

>>5
Yeah, I sometimes wonder if the correctness of my programs is even possible to determine.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 11:21

>>3
I prefer PostScript, actually. I dunno why. I would very much prefer bound executable arrays to bungling around with XTs.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 16:40

Write your own fucking Forth, that's the whole idea of the language.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 16:47

>>5
If that's all you're after you should just use Jot then. Strictly speaking, it's not Gödel-numbering, but it does the same job, and very practically too.

>>6
Yeah, I sometimes wonder if the correctness of my programs is even possible to determine.
17 Verification Support

In addition to its role as a means of expressing computation, BitC directly supports the expression of constraints on execution, and the expression of proof obligations concerning the results of computations. While the bulk of verification effort is performed in the BitC Prover, theorems and invariants also introduce requirements for compile-time static checking.

Note that the phrase ``all possible variable instantiations'' is restricted to legal instantions as determined by the type checker. BitC is statically typed, and BitC functions and theorems are therefore defined only over their stated domains.
http://www.bitc-lang.org/docs/bitc/spec.html#17

Just throwing that out there.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 21:58

``all possible variable instantiations''
More [sup]\\\[/sup]faggot quotes^//.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 22:38

More bbcode failure, looks like.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-19 9:25

>>11
More like [sup]\\[/sup]samefag^//

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-19 12:30

>>12
samefag
http://boards.4chan.org/b/

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-19 16:42

>>13
This is quickly getting old.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-19 17:44

>>14
That's the idea.

FORTH

1 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 1:24

2 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 1:41

3 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 5:11

4 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 10:25

5 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 10:43

6 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 11:14

7 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 11:21

8 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 16:40

9 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 16:47

10 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 21:58

11 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-17 22:38

12 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-19 9:25

13 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-19 12:30

14 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-19 16:42

15 Name: Anonymous 2010-04-19 17:44