Coding in form He reminded me of unlawful dystopia in Mad Max. You create your own rules, subject to the limits of context. You can re -define the IF statement, if so, please. You can prescribe the machine code instructions for the word. You can even change words during the performance. Since the words themselves become key words, you can create a language that is optimized for one purpose, packing commands, which would otherwise there be dozens of lines only in one. “In -tsth, you create your own language”, Leo Brodie, author of the first textbook, StartingHe told me.
Low nature Forth, although the key to his processing force, made programming foreign. He uses PostFix, a form of mathematical notation that renders 2 + 1 as 2 1+ and which I did not find intuitive or even really readable. And although most of the languages allow you to break down and transfer memory, the forms are based on the pile of chronologically stored chronologically and managed on the basis of the last/first. I came up with worms, forcing myself to abandon the program conventions, which I considered universal. I fought with the language of the machine.
When I sent E -Mail to Dupras to ask for facilitate, he compared the utilize of a stick to lead. It is more detailed than C., where the latter define the calling of convention, variable storage and managing a feedback, he abandons it all for a programmer. It directly interacts with memory in the same way as C, but significantly exceeds C in terms of precision and performance. “People are wrong as soon as language,” says Dupras. “It’s a way to interact with a computer.”
The reason why it is not more popular is the same reason why most of us drive automation. The personal calculation boom in the 1990s caused obsession with making whether the technology matched the hand and facilitating code writing. The languages were separated to protect programmers from each other, and somewhere along the way we got lost. Things became detached because of the convenience and, in the words of Dupras, began to “emanate unsuginuable oil on every corner.”
“The way we understand performance is so distorted,” says Dupras. Forth is a scythe for Python’s mower. “If you calculate the number of juals for a grass blade, you will find that the Scything person is more efficient,” he says. “When you think about speed, you’ll see a mower as more efficient.” Forth forces you to precisely and competent memory-to-dial resources, just like after falling. Of course, dupras crosses its own lawn. “At some point you can go as fast as a mower,” he says.
I started to find my way. Instead of sending bytes to the ether and trust the system to find out where they are going, as in Python, I got used to being responsible for allocating and releasing memory. I could only think about what was stored, where it was stored and how much space it required. Each code line suddenly wore. I was an immortal Joe, my laptop was my citadel, and my memory was my water.
Soon I was able to improve and visit my code as if I was a sentence. Instead of expecting that the machine predicts my needs, I tried to think like a machine to fulfill it more than halfway. And because I had to think twice, all unnecessarily intricate acronyts that remind us to be concise in other coding languages - Yagni (you won’t need it), kiss (keep straight, stupid), parched (don’t repeat yourself) – they were old-fashioned.