Uxn is an interesting idea and to some degree also a good implementation, but the specifications are proprietary, littered with stupid drawings and the people, who make it, are insufferable. If the people making it were just a little bit less retarded the project would be a lot better. >>4
some of the people online say the best way to learn forth is to implement a forth yourself in some other language. which... i mean.. i guess?
It depends on what you want to achieve. You won't be a good Forth (or Lisp/Scheme/any other minimalist language) programmer overnight, just because you understand how it works internally. It's a "the thing is more than the sum of its parts"-kind of situation, where you will be still lacking a lot of knowledge that can only be learned by doing programming in Forth and actually building stuff with it, rather than building a compiler/interpreter, which will teach you more about compiler architecture than programming.
>>4
It depends on what you want to achieve. You won't be a good Forth (or Lisp/Scheme/any other minimalist language) programmer overnight, just because you understand how it works internally. It's a "the thing is more than the sum of its parts"-kind of situation, where you will be still lacking a lot of knowledge that can only be learned by doing programming in Forth and actually building stuff with it, rather than building a compiler/interpreter, which will teach you more about compiler architecture than programming.