← Back to context

Comment by anthk

16 hours ago

Compare Limbo+Tk under Inferno with current C#/Java. Or C++ against Plan9C.

We have impressive CPU's running really crappy software.

Remember Claude Code asking 66GB for a damn CLI AI agent for something NetBSD under a Vax (real or physical) from 1978 could do with NCurses in miliseconds every time you spawn Nethack or any other NCurses tool/game.

On speed, Forth for the ACE was faster than Basic running under the ZX80. So, it wasn't about using a text-parsed language. Forth was fast, but people was not ready for neither RPN nor to manage the stack, people tought in an algebraic way.

But that was an 'obsolete' mindset, because once you hit HS you were supposed to split 'big problems into smaller tasks (equations). In order to implement a 2nd degree equation solver in Forth you wouldn't juggle with the stack; you created discrete functions (words) for the discrimination part and so on.

In the end you just managed two stack items per step.

If Forth won instead of Basic, instead of allowing spaghetti code as a normal procedure we would be pretty much asking to decompose code into small functions as the right thing to do from the start.

Most dialects of BASIC actually had functions too. They just weren’t popularised because line numbers were still essential for line editing on home micros.

> On speed, Forth for the ACE was faster than Basic running under the ZX80. So, it wasn't about using a text-parsed language.

Forth and BASIC are completely different languages and you’re arguing a different point to the one I made too.

Also I don’t see much value in hypothetical arguments like “if Forth won instead of BASIC” because it didn’t and thus we are talking about actual systems people owned.

I mean, I could list a plethora of technologies I’d have preferred to dominate: Pascal and LISP being two big examples. But the C64 wasn’t a lisp machine and people aren’t writing modern software in Pascal. So they’re completely moot to the conversation.

  • They were different but both came in-ROM and with similar storage options (cassette/floppy).

    On Pascal, Delphi was used for tons of RAD software in the 90's, both for the enterprise and for home users with zillions of shareware (and shovelware). And Lazarus/FPC+SQLITE3 today is not bad at all.

    On Lisp... it was used on niche places such as game engines, Emacs -Org Mode today it's a beast-, a whole GNU supported GNU distro (Scheme) and Maxima among others.

    Still, the so called low-level C++ it's an example on things picking the wrong route. C++ and QT5/6 can be performant enough. But, for a roguelike, the performance on compiling it's atrocious and by design Go with the GC would fix a 90% of the problems and even gain more portability.

    • I’m very aware of Lazarus, Delphi and Emacs. But they’re exceptions rather than industry norms.

      And thus pointing them out misses the point I was making when, ironically, I was pointing out how you’re missing the original point of this discussion.

      3 replies →