| ??? 11/15/11 18:08 Read: times |
#184750 - Many FORTH implementations are interpreted, aren't they? Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I haven't looked at FORTH for at least two decades, but ISTR that FORTH is often interpreted, and does very well in that form.
Forth was, at one time, VERY popular among embedded programmers, and, in fact, there's at least one fairly useable version that's written for the 805x and is totally FREE. RE |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Interpreted Languages? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sometimes it's hidden | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| p-code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| P-code and others | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| interpreter/compiler | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Debatable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not necessarily machine code | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Definitely debatable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Ofcourse not | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| runtime errors | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You can't | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You missed the point! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not always worth it with interpreted languaes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I like your thinking | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Many FORTH implementations are interpreted, aren't they? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Forth | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe a comparison? | 01/01/70 00:00 |