Linked by Conrad Voorsanger on Thu 2nd Jun 2011 16:28 UTC
Permalink for comment 476108
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-08-28
We're still talking about compiled x86 code? Honestly I don't understand the logic, but no matter.
If I'm correct, there have been studies into that (Like can an Assembler programmer outperform an optimizing C compiler). Result: Only about 10 percent of programmers can outperform an optimizer.
Ans so I guess, that something similar to the above is behind the logic: Forth makes "dirty work" for you.
This is fine for programming algorithms, and it's probably fine for OS work. However I'd be worried about leaving typical web developers to write their own functions. I imagine this results in a lot of duplicate code between libraries.
Nobody said, that Forth is going to replace HTML. Regarding the libraries: Forth programmers often prefer to "reinvent the wheel" - and to implement the things own way - instead of relying on old, fatty, buggy, and (still more and more) bloated libraries.
You're welcome.