> I have found forth-like languages very simple to implement, and very
> useful as a sort of minimal interpretter.  Things are further simplified
> if you you pair down the functions/keywords you define to a bare minimum,
> rather than trying to do a full "standard forth" implementation.  This
> winds up giving you something more like an HP calculator than "real forth",
> but it can be just as useful...

Even implementing a standard forth is fairly easy (as long as I don't have
to do floating point... -- I haven't seen the standard in ages). I
remembering it taking me four evenings to implement it from scratch on
a 68000. OK, I cheated: I had an assembler.
--
D. Jay Newman          ! Pudge controls the weather.
jay@sprucegrove.com    !
http://enerd.ws/~jay/  ! Oh good. My dog found the chainsaw.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body