Re: merging edit time and run time

Hello guys,

People on the CF list are interested in this kind of stuff. Open-minded 
programmers are we? I have seen a couple of other similar approaches; 
SELF- the language, and SuperCede - the java IDE. Both allowed/allowes 
programmes to be edited in runtime. And this is what I find more 
interesting in Subtext than the cut-and-paste way of programming. There 
is no such thing as "the best way" to program a computer. Personally I 
think the computer/hardware is the limiting factor not the language or 
the IDE.

Thanks for the URL

Sten Kvamme

On 2005-05-11, at 17.29, Mark Slicker wrote:

> On Wed, 11 May 2005, [iso-8859-1] Frédéric DUBOIS wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I reread your post. I've seen Chuck talk about the all the different
>>> 'times' of a word[1], display/edit/compile/define/run time.
>>
>> Yes, I remembered that too and then your proposal of merging edit- and
>> run-time seemed to me somewhat in contradiction with it.
>> However, the Subtext example may indeed be fertile. Translated in CF, 
>> I
>> imagine a feature that let you give "a stack" (with some parameters) 
>> to a
>> word in the editor, and then the system would compile and execute 
>> this word
>> and it's dependencies automatically.
>>
>> But I think we forgot to answer a very basic question: what's wrong 
>> with CF?
>> That's a true question: you have to identify precisely the problem 
>> before
>> you can solve it.
>
> I thought subtext was interesting, and I saw some similarities with 
> colorForth. This is why I posted the message on subtext. It hasn't 
> changed my view colorForth, and it is not clear to me how the ideas of 
> subtext would be integrated into colorForth much less if they would 
> offer any signifigant benefit.
>
> Mark
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> Main web page - http://www.colorforth.com