News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Existential Haskell. Parent comment

Re:Existential Haskell by johnisgood on Monday November 30, 2020 @07:12AM (#25252982)
What do you think about the Forth way of doing it? I cannot get into it in detail here, hopefully you know about its internals. If not, then I recommend 3 sources.

- http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/551.jvn.fall01/prim...

- https://www.forth.com/starting-forth/11-forth-compiler-defin...

- https://www.forth.com/starting-forth/9-forth-execution/

> In Forth, there is virtually no excess overhead in recursive calls because Forth uses the stack directly. So there is no reason not to recurse if that is the best way to program the algorithm.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Existential Haskell by chriswarbo on Monday November 30, 2020 @08:39AM (#25253545)
Yeah Forth is another example of how these calling conventions are equivalent. It's not just some quirk of Forth's implementation either, since languages like Joy and Kitten do the same thing with pure functions. Unfortunately I've not had much need to learn or use Forth in a significant way (the most I've done is play with OpenFirmware)
[ Parent | on HN ]