OT: on IDEs and code writing on steroids

[Walter Bright]

bearophile wrote:
> Forth interpreters can be very small, it's a very flexible language,
> you can metaprogram it almost as Lisp, and if implemented well it can
> be efficient (surely more than interpreter Basic, but less than
> handwritten asm. You can have an optimizing Forth in probably less
> than 4-5 KB).
> 
> But the people was waiting/asking for the Basic Language, most people
> didn't know Forth, Basic was common in schools, so Basic was the
> language shipped inside the machine, instead of Forth: 
> http://www.npsnet.com/danf/cbm/languages.html#FORTH
> 
> The Commodore 64 with built-in Forth instead of Basic may have driven
> computer science in a quite different direction.
> 
> Do you agree?

I remember lots of talk about Forth, and nobody using it.