21–30 of 33 posts
The problem is that the announcement page goes to [1] where it should go to [2] (a simple issue using os=macosx instead of os=macos)
brew install --cask factor also works
[1] https://builds.factorcode.org/release?os=macosx&cpu=x86.64
[2] https://builds.factorcode.org/release?os=macos&cpu=x86.64
There is a glitch in the web page because the macOS link doesn't provide any package to download. The problem is that the announcement page goes to [1] where it should go to [2] (a simple issue using os=macosx instead of os=macos) brew install --cask factor also works [1] https://builds.factorcode.org/release?os=macosx&cpu=x86.64 [2] https://builds.factorcode.org/release?os=macos&cpu=x86.64
It was correct on the main Factor website, but my blog was using the old links before we fixed the macos rename.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it's feasible. Wielded well (read "Starting Forth" and "Thinking Forth") the concatinative languages are very good for eliminating incidental complexity, so code approaches the Kolmogorov complexity of the problem or task it's for.
Feasible, but takes a lot of skills and hard work to break the problem down into small enough pieces. It's a different way of writing software.
Same for every programming language.
The advantage that concatinative languages have over others is the closeness of their syntax to the semantics of the domain which makes them much easier to learn and use than other PLs (unless one has previously learned the other PLs first. Otherwise PLs like C and Java seem hopelessly baroque.)
I spent a couple of weeks getting into Factor in 2022 and it was the most fun I’ve had programming, probably ever. Language itself aside, the dev environment and process of writing Factor is just delightful.
I spent a couple of weeks getting into Factor in 2022 and it was the most fun I’ve had programming, probably ever. Language itself aside, the dev environment and process of writing Factor is just delightful.
I did this back in 2009 for a couple of months and it was fantastic. I then switched to Clojure because it was a little more mainstream (relatively speaking at least haha), but I feel I learned a lot from my time with Factor. It certainly made me respect the language and concatenative style.
It felt good to be near watching that pace of development and excitement.
https://www.concatenative.org/wiki/view/Concatenative%20lang...
Interesting!
Would it be feasible to build a larger application using a language like Factor? I have no experience with concatenative programming, and it seems interesting, but I also get the feeling that larger systems would become rather complex and hard to read.
Here’s a somewhat related, albeit casual, read - if you’re curious: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.forth/c/ThWiGXwKqv4
I want to like and use Forth for something, but this from the post sums it up pretty well.
"I told my partner that the final device could not be programmed in Forth. Why would I say such a thing? Simply because technology had passed Forth by, in my opinion. It was no longer possible for one person to develop all the software required in a graphical environment. I needed to buy the tools I needed to leverage my time for a professional job. I could no longer play the role of the maverick programmer, nor did I want to. I need to be part of a collaborative community in which I can give and receive work. I do not see Forth as a viable solution as of today."
That was 1995. His "story" also ended in 1995 with him being unemployed. The author is Allen Cekorich, which made it easy for me to look him up on LinkedIn and see what happened after. Yes, LinkedIn is good for something. Sounds like he landed on his feet.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/allen-cekorich-a86aa731/details/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feasible, but takes a lot of skills and hard work to break the problem down into small enough pieces. It's a different way of writing software.
> takes a lot of skills and hard work to break the problem down Same for every programming language. The advantage that concatinative languages have over others is the closeness of their syntax to the semantics of the domain which makes them much easier to learn and use than other PLs (unless one has previously learned the other PLs first. Otherwise PLs like C and Java seem hopelessly baroque.)
All languages fall on a spectrum, different priorities, strengths and weaknesses.
Forth is all about simplicity of implementation, it's the number one idea driving every decision. Which means a lot of other priorities, like higher level abstractions, are more difficult to achieve.
It does make a nice DSL sometimes, so does Lisp, to an even greater extent, while providing plenty of higher level abstractions.