From: dxforth@gmail.com   
      
   On 26/06/2025 5:12 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:   
   > dxf  writes:   
   >> Define 'unreadable'.  In general I don't need to understand the nitty   
   >> gritty of a routine.  But should I and no stack commentary exists, I've   
   >> no objections to creating it.  It's par for the course in Forth.  If it   
   >> bugged me I wouldn't be doing Forth.   
   >   
   > Unreadable = I look at the code and have no idea what it's doing.  The   
   > logic is often obscured by stack manipulation.  The values in the stack   
   > are meaningful to the program's operation, but what is the meaning?  In   
   > most languages, meaningful values have names, and the names convey the   
   > meaning.  In Forth, you can write comments for that purpose.  Years   
   > after cmForth was published, someone wrote a set of shadow screens for   
   > it, and that helped a lot.   
   >   
   > With no named values and no explanatory comments, the program becomes   
   > opaque.   
      
   Yet forthers have no problem with this.  Take the SwiftForth source code.   
   At best you'll get a general comment as to what a function does.  How do   
   they maintain it - the same way anyone proficient in C maintains C code.   
   Albert is correct.  Familiarity is key to readability.  That's not to say   
   code deserving documentation shouldn't have it.  OTOH one shouldn't be   
   expecting documentation (including stack commentary) for what's an everyday   
   affair in Forth.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)