Re: objects and forth

I remember Jeff Fox saying something to the point of that the engineers
he worked with who knew ASM had a very easy time picking up the 1X
Forths (machine forth, etc.).  But those who were firmly entrenched in
the C and related paradigms had a much harder time seeing the virtues of
1X forth and adopting its methodologies.  So I'm wondering if the
approach of learning C or Lisp or Small Talk first may prime the mind in
a ineffecient way when it comes to forth?


On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 22:33:42 -0300 , "Jecel Assumpcao Jr"
<[email protected]> said:
> David J. Goehrig wrote:
> 
> > The way I typically teach programming to newbies, and reteach people
> > who've acquired a theoretical education, is I start off with the bit, and
> > move up from there.  By the end a few days, they've learned enough
> > to do basic assembler.  I then work with them to build a C or Lisp or
> > Smalltalk.  At that point, if they're willing I introduce them to Forth.
> 
> You might find this course interesting:
> 
> http://www1.idc.ac.il/tecs/
> 
> It is better known as "From Nand to Tetris in 12 steps". The authors
> make some silly mistakes, like in their explanation of Harvard versus
> Von Neuman architectures. And their machine language is more horrible
> than I would like. But in general it seems to be a good course.
> 
> About the subject, I worked on hardware for OO Color Forth in 2001/2002
> and so have an opinion about this. But it will have to wait until
> tomorrow (Friday is more likely...).
> 
> -- Jecel
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com
>