Am I reading this right? Chuck Moore decided that all programming could be done with sourceless coding and his demonstration of this was a graphical application? This is so common, yet so totally wrong. It's akin to the "revelation" that algebra is not necessary in mathematics because all mathematics can be "visualised". Which is equally stupid. However, I may just be misinterpreting what is being said in that quote. After all, I don't know why he then switched back to Forth, which is not sourceless, I am guessing.
"Am I reading this right? Chuck Moore decided that all programming could be done with sourceless coding and his demonstration of this was a graphical application? This is so common, yet so totally wrong."
He later recanted:
"I'm back.
OKAD was a mistake. I have added Forth to OKAD. ...
A few years ago I gave up on Forth, it was too complicated. It was about the time of the work of the standard committee and I wanted something simple. I abandoned source and used a decompiler to view the object code. It did not really work. I also wanted to get away from the keyboard."
No, Forth is not sourceless. Though I was startled to read about how some implementations give you a souped-up disk editor for coding, to avoid the overhead of a self-hosted filesystem. I guess it beats toggling bits into the front panel....
