Re: New RDBMS implementation

In message <pan.2004.05.07.01.52.45.970035_at_dutra.fastmail.fm>, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm> writes
>Em Thu, 06 May 2004 23:41:19 +0100, Anthony W. Youngman escreveu:
>
>>> I do think functions would do just OK. That said, there is no
>>>such thing as a pure functional language... all of them have side
>>>effects, and there lies their usefulness.
>>
>> Forth?
>
> Forth isn't functional, is it? I seem to remember it is more
>of stack-based... did it ever get database access? I can only think
>of two uses for it: OpenFirmware and Postscript. Perhaps there are
>some other embedded uses...
>
Yes - it is very stack-based. But, as I understand it, it consists solely of functions :-) To program in it you do something like

: pimult 3.14159 * ;

In other words

: // define a function
pimult // called pimult
3.11459 // push pi onto the stack
* // multiply
; // end function definition

Oh - and I don't think it's just OpenFirmware that's written in Forth. At least one BIOS (I think it's Award) is written in Forth.

It has the very unusual property that a good Forth programmer can usually come up with an executable that is SMALLER than the equivalent written by good assembler programmer !!! :-)

Or wasn't that what you meant by "functional" :-)

Cheers,
Wol

-- 
Anthony W. Youngman - wol at thewolery dot demon dot co dot uk
HEX wondered how much he should tell the Wizards. He felt it would not be a
good idea to burden them with too much input. Hex always thought of his reports
as Lies-to-People.
The Science of Discworld : (c) Terry Pratchett 1999