From: stephen@vfxforth.com   
      
   On 2 Jul 2025 at 05:39:52 CEST, "dxf"  wrote:   
      
   > On 1/07/2025 10:22 pm, Hans Bezemer wrote:   
   >> On 27-06-2025 03:39, dxf wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> I think you and Albert are on the right track here. Familiarity is a large   
   >> part of this "readability" thingy. There are a few notes I want to add,   
   >> though:   
   >>   
   >> 1. "Infix notation" is part of this familiarity. I know I've commented every   
   >> single expression in TEONW, since I understand those "infix" expressions   
   much   
   >> better than all those RPN thingies - and you got something to check your   
   code   
   >> against;   
   >>   
   >> 2. Intentionality. I do this a LOT. E.g. if you find OVER OVER in my code,   
   >> you may be certain those two items have nothing to do with each other. If   
   you   
   >> find 2DUP it's a string, a double number or another "addr/count" array. CHOP   
   >> replaces 1 /STRING. Also: stack patterns can be codified like SPIN or STOW;   
   >>   
   >> 3. Brevity. Short definitions are easier to understand. If you can abstract   
   >> it, put a name of it can spare the performance - split it up.   
   >>   
   >> 4. Naming. I give this a LOT of thought. I prefer reading a name and having   
   a   
   >> pretty good idea of what that code does (especially in the context of a   
   >> library or a program). See:   
   >> https://sourceforge.net/p/forth-4th/wiki/What%27s%20in%20a%20name%3F/   
   >>   
   >> Feel free to disagree. It may not work for you, but at least it works for   
   me.   
   >   
   > Recently someone told me about Christianity - how it wasn't meant to be easy   
   -   
   > supposed to be, among other things, a denial of the senses.  I'm hearing much   
   > the same in Forth.  That it's a celibate practice in which one denies   
   everyday   
   > sensory pleasures including readability and maintainability in order to   
   achieve   
   > programming nirvana.  Heck, if that's how folks see Forth then perhaps they   
   > should stop before the cognitive dissonance sends them crazy or they pop a   
   > cork.   
      
   IMHO religious belief is not a denial of the senses but a retraining. That   
   does not mean that the retraining leads to anything valuable, but it can   
   do depending very much on the trainer and trainee.   
      
   Stephen   
      
   --   
   Stephen Pelc, stephen@vfxforth.com   
   Wodni & Pelc GmbH   
   Vienna, Austria   
   Tel: +44 (0)7803 903612, +34 649 662 974   
   http://www.vfxforth.com/downloads/VfxCommunity/   
     free VFX Forth downloads   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)