> Any pointers to where this is elaborated on more precisely?
No, not off the top of my head. There is "Thinking Forth" by Leo Brodie (it's a whole book but worth the read. You can get official free PDFs here: http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net/ )
It's a natural consequence from the ease of refactoring. Boilerplate and repetitious stuff gets refactored, leaving just the actual gnarly bits to take up most of the LoC.
> every language must surely make some things awkward right?
I think there's some theorem to that effect, no? (I want to say Rice's Theorem but that's not it.)
Forth is typically implemented in such a way as to give easy access to the underlying hardware, so in theory (and often in practice too) if there's some faculty you're missing from some other language or execution model you can implement it in Forth. People have made, e.g. object models and logic engines in Forth.
No, not off the top of my head. There is "Thinking Forth" by Leo Brodie (it's a whole book but worth the read. You can get official free PDFs here: http://thinking-forth.sourceforge.net/ )
It's a natural consequence from the ease of refactoring. Boilerplate and repetitious stuff gets refactored, leaving just the actual gnarly bits to take up most of the LoC.
> every language must surely make some things awkward right?
I think there's some theorem to that effect, no? (I want to say Rice's Theorem but that's not it.)
Forth is typically implemented in such a way as to give easy access to the underlying hardware, so in theory (and often in practice too) if there's some faculty you're missing from some other language or execution model you can implement it in Forth. People have made, e.g. object models and logic engines in Forth.