Date: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 15:47:20 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Karpberg <karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se> To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New boot loader and alternate kernels Message-ID: <199811011447.PAA21479@ocean.campus.luth.se> In-Reply-To: <199810302013.MAA01772@dingo.cdrom.com> from Mike Smith at "Oct 30, 98 12:13:09 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
According to Mike Smith: > > > (Yes, I agree that Forth would be more powerful. Compromises...) > > > > Ah, well. I guess I'm proposing Forth so strongly because it's so powerful > > and compact, and fast... and so incredibly extensible when you need it. No > > need to reinvent the same things each time, writing yet another > > incompatible language... > > > > I think this is important opportunity - let's not miss it without good > > reasons... As I said, there are people among us who can even write small > > enough Forth kernel for our purposes. > > I have no desire to miss it. Give me a compact Forth interpreter that > links against libstand and you'll be seeing it everywhere Real Soon. Eeep! Umm... what exactly does this mean? I mean... I don't know anyone that knows forth... lots of people know sh. And a logical special language (whic resembles sh and the other script languages) is not real hard to learn either. Why mess it up and get forth in there? And to do what exactly? /Mikael To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811011447.PAA21479>