Read it once more, and it was a good way to remind me of how fun programming was before we had megabyte libraries and dozens of layers of abstraction.<p>I also noticed something that made me smile:<p><i>&quot;There is no generally agreed syntax for this, so I&#x27;ve gone for the syntax mandated by the ISO standard&quot;</i><p>You won&#x27;t read that in the source code of a C, pascal, or Fortran compiler, and there basically is only one forth standard, but historically, many implementations know better than to follow it. That is both a good and a bad thing.<p>On the plus side, it is extremely flexible, but the price one pays for that is that there is barely any code reuse because every system is different.<p>For systems on which Forth shines, that isn&#x27;t a problem. There, you do not include that 400 byte floating point library &quot;as is&quot;, but take the source, remove the 2% of it that you do not need, and tweak a few calls to make them smaller at the price of performance because you don&#x27;t have 400 bytes to waste on a bloated floating point package. You don&#x27;t <i>program in</i> Forth, you <i>write a</i> forth.